DIGAMBER RABIDAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in memo No. 94 dated 8.3.2008, Annexure-13, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur whereby his contractual engagement as Rojgar Sevak had been terminated on account of his unsatisfactory service and in terms of the Appointment Rules of 2007 Section 11(Cha), which governed the service conditions of such employees who are engaged on contractual basis.

(2.) The petitioner admittedly was engaged on contractual basis as Rojgar Sevak under the Pakur district and was posted by different orders issued vide Annexures-1, 2 and finally by 3 at the last place of his posting at Mohanpur, Gram Panchayat from where; his services had been terminated. The reasons indicated in termination of service as per the impugned order is that on complain of certain named persons of the same Panchayat, it was found that the petitioner had drawn Government money intended for payment of wages of labourers on two different dates i.e. on 31.1.2008 and 18.2.2008 and deposited it after 20 to 23 days in the Post Office for onward payment to the concerned daily wagers, which is a case of serious irregularity and violation of the Government Rules under which, such Government money could not have been kept by such a person performing the duties of Rojgar Sevak.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that the impugned order has been passed without any show cause or notice to him and during the period of 4.2.2008 to 3.4.2008, he was undergoing training at State Institute of Rural Development, Hehal, Ranchi and could not have been saddled with the said allegation. He, however, submits that the inquiry conducted on 4.3.2008, which is also at Annexure-12 and also at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent, has falsely shown that the petitioner had made admission on his own part on the said date as he was already away undergoing training at Ranchi during the said period.