MUKESH KUMAR MUNDOTIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, being fully eligible, was engaged on 26.03.2008 on contract basis to work on the post of Junior Technical Assistant at Panchayat Samiti, Dantaramgarh. He performed his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and there was no complaint with regard to his performance. The Block Development Officer-cum-Programme Officer issued him experience certificate dated 27.05.2010 certifying his effective and satisfactory service. Thereafter, the District Collector & District Programme Coordinator has issued him experience certificate dated 15.03.2013 thereby certifying his service from 05.04.2008 to 28.02.2013 in MGNREGA scheme. Owing to allegation of inferiority in construction of work of gravel road at different places in the Panchayat Samiti in the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-10. At that time, Sarpanch and Assistant Engineer were posted there for verification of the work. After completion of said work, full payment was made to the labourers on the basis of report of the Social Audit Committee, as whole work was found as per norms. On the basis of a false complaint, the Lokpal conducted enquiry against the then Sarpanch, Gram Sewak Sagarmal of Gram Panchayat Bajyawas, District Sikar, and petitioner on allegation of inferior work in construction of gravel roads. The Lokpal found the construction of gravel roads at points no.1 to 7 not satisfactory. It is submitted that though the work was the quality work, but due to rainfall, the gravel road of Heera-was to Bajyawas got damaged and caused obstruction in public transport. He further found the 'talai' digging work and concrete construction work to have been done. This work was also got damaged due to rainfall. Due to rainfall, the measurement of patching work cannot be done. The Lokpal, vide order dated 28.03.2013, directed the authorities for conducting departmental enquiry against Gram Sewak, Junior Technical Assistant and Sarpanch, and action was ordered to be taken against them under Section 25 of the MGNREGA Act, 2005. In compliance whereof, the respondent no.4 imposed upon him a fine of Rs.1000/-. Petitioner deposited the same on 01.04.2015. Even after deposit of amount of fine, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, called upon explanation of petitioner in said allegation. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that proceedings with regard to same allegation amount to double jeopardy because there cannot be two parallel enquiries with regard to same charge. The Lokpal has already passed order and directed the authorities to pass necessary order under Section 25 of the MGNREGA Act, 2005. The Block Development Officer, in reply to letter of the Chief Executive Officer dated 04.06.2015, submitted his report dated 05.06.2015 stating the work of petitioner to be satisfactory. Respondent no.3 ? the Additional District Programme Coordinator-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, without looking into report of Block Development Officer, terminated the contract of service of petitioner with immediate effect.

(2.) It is argued that similar allegations were there against Gram Sewak and the then Sarpanch of the said Panchayat but no action has been taken against the Sarpanch and only minor penalty has been imposed on Gram Sewak concerned of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner has been discriminated without any justified reason. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused material on record, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Appointment of petitioner was contractual in nature and that no regular enquiry was required to be held against him as envisaged under the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Not only the Lokpal has made enquiry and found proved negligence and misconduct of petitioner but the Block Development Officer-cum-Programme Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar, also, in his report, recorded finding of guilt against petitioner. The respondents have not committed any illegality in terminating the contractual services of the petitioner. It cannot be said to be a case of double jeopardy. Even if the enquiry was made twice, that cannot be said to have violated any right of the petitioner.