BAHA MURUM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING order dated 27.07.2012, terminating the service of the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as Rojgar Sewak on contractual basis in the MNREGA scheme. The petitioner was transferred to Sonadhani Panchayat in Littipara Block. On 28.06.2012, a show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that muster rolls, job cards, deposit forms etc. were found in the custody of one Shankar Pramanik and Rakshakar Sah who are not even government employees. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show -cause notice denying the charge of negligence. However, an enquiry was conducted into the matter and in the enquiry report dated 23.05.2012, it was found that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to keep muster rolls cards, job cards and other relevant documents relating to the MNREGA scheme in safe custody. The charge against the petitioner was found proved and therefore, by order dated 27.07.2012, the petitioner was terminated from service.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed taking a plea that the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of specific charge of his involvement in bungling of MNREGA scheme by preparing fake muster rolls and other documents. Copies of the muster rolls and other relevant documents were seized from the possession of Shankar Pramanik and Rakshakar Sah whereas, the petitioner was the custodian of those documents. An enquiry was conducted by the Executive Magistrate and it has been found that one middleman namely, Shankar Pramanik was involved in preparation of fake documents and other relevant documents. Paragraph Nos. 9 -13 of the counter -affidavit are extracted below:

(3.) MR . Rajeeva Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is no charge of forgery leveled against the petitioner and although the mate namely, Gangaram Thakur admitted his guilt, he was not terminated from service and the petitioner has been terminated from service illegally and therefore, the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 has been passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that even in cases of contractual appointments the proportionality of punishment has to be taken into consideration and since there is no specific charge of forgery against the petitioner, the penalty of termination of petitioner from service is excessive and disproportionate to the charge found proved against the petitioner.