KUSHESHWAR RAVIDAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three Petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the order contained in memo No. 23 dated 30.1.2010 (Annexure-7), by which their engagement as Panchayat Rozgar Sewak on contract basis has been cancelled on the ground of serious irregularities committed by them. The Petitioners were initially engaged on contract basis as Panchayat Rozgar Sewaks under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') for two years. Their working was found satisfactory and, therefore, vide Annexure-5 dated 31.10.2009, their engagement was further extended by two years. However, soon thereafter they received the said impugned order dated 30.1.2010 by which their engagement was cancelled.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that only after finding their functioning satisfactory their engagement was extended for two years more. Therefore, only one month's after there could be no valid reasons for their disengagement. He submits that the Petitioners were never apprised of the reasons for their disengagement and were not pointed out with regard to any irregularity committed by them and without any opportunity to them to explain their conduct, the aid order was passed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this regard refers to a letter of the Principal Secretary of the Rural Development Department to all the District Magistrate-cum-District Programme Coordinators and to all Deputy Development Com-missioner-cum-Additional District Programme Coordinators, as contained in Annexure-12. He points out that in this letter it was specifically mentioned that engagement of persons working under the Scheme could be cancelled only after due notice to them to file their explanation with regard to any lapses found on their part. He submits that contrary to this stipulation the engagement of Petitioners have been cancelled without any notice to them and without giving them any opportunity to explain their conduct which the authority may have been found as irregular.

(3.) Learned AAG-VIII appears for the Respondents. He submits that the terms of the contract itself contains the clause that the services of such persons engaged under the Scheme could be cancelled without giving any notice. He particularly refers to clause-4 of the agreement of the contract, as contained in Annexure-1. He also submits that thorough enquiry was held in respect of implementation of the Scheme in the Panchayat and several lapses were found on the part of different persons engaged for implementation of the Scheme which included the Petitioners also. He submits that in the enquiry the Petitioners and other Panchayat Sewaks were noticed and were directed to produce the records for the purposes of enquiry. The Panchayat Sewaks produced the records and participated in the enquiry on the basis of which the report was submitted in respect of the lapses committed by different Panchayat Sewaks and other persons engaged in the Scheme. The report was submitted to the Vigilance Department where it was considered and by letter dated 21.12.2009, as contained in Annexure-G, the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura was directed steps should be taken for immediate cancellation of contract of such Panchayat Sewaks, Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Programme Officers etc. and strict action should be taken against them and communicated to the Vigilance Department. Pursuant to the said letter, the engagement of the Petitioners have been cancelled as in the enquiry it was found that they have committed lapses in the functioning.