MANJULA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1317 of 2013 dated 11th Feb., 2014 whereby the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed whereby the order of termination of the services of this appellant as Rojgar Sewak was held as a valid one and, therefore, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working as Rojgar Sewak and under MGNREGA scheme, construction of well was going on and looking to the MGNREGA scheme Clause 6, which is at page 39 of this memo of appeal, several verifications, etc were to be done by the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer, because several technicalities are involved in the construction of the well. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur had written a letter to the Block Development Officer of Pakur, District Pakur on 3rd May, 2012 which is annexed at Annexure-2 to the memo of appeal and it was pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner that there are certain defects in the construction of the well. If these defects are read, it is too technical in nature for which the Rojgar Sewak is not responsible at all, because it involves highly engineering aspects which are to be monitored by the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer as per Clause 16 of the Scheme (page 39 of this memo of appeal). Explanation was sought for by the Block Development Officer, Pakur from all the concerned officers including this appellant and ultimately, Block Development Officer, Pakur reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur vide his report dated 12th May, 2012 (Annexure-3 to this memo of appeal) that there is some deviation in the construction of the well and this is because of physical situation and due to geographical situation of the land and, therefore, necessary band was given as per the requirement on the site by the Junior Engineer and there is no fault lies on the part of the Rojgar Sewak. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this appellant is a Rojgar Sewak and he is not the Engineer at all. Nonetheless, directly, without holding any enquiry and without any enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur terminated the services of this appellant vide order dated 30th May, 2012 which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of appeal. Thus, there is no fault lies on the part of the appellant. Appellant is not an Engineer at all. Super-technical aspects have been mentioned in the letter by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 3rd May, 2012 (Annexure-2) which can be understood by Engineers only and without holding any enquiry and without any report of the Enquiry Officer, directly the conclusion has been arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur that Rojgar Sewak, i.e. the appellant, is responsible for the faults committed in the construction of the well. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.1317 of 2013 dated 11th Feb., 2014 may be quashed and set aside, so far as this appellant is concerned.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that no error has been committed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur while passing the order dated 30th May, 2012 (Annexure-6) as well as, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant mainly for the reason that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant and ultimately his explanation to the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 03.05.2012 (Annexure-2) was found unsatisfactory and, hence, the order of termination of service of this appellant was passed on 30th May, 2012 (Annexure-6). It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there is a total deviation in the construction of the well from the basic requirements which have been mentioned in the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 03.05.2012 for which this appellant, who was working as Rojgar Sewak, was liable. This matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that this appellant was working on a contractual basis.