JUDGEMENT
S. Chandrashekhar, J. -
(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:
9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition it is prayer of the petitioner which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner has been terminated from his services of Rojgar Sewak on the ground of clear and specific charges of his involvement in bungling of MNREGA schemes by preparing fake Muster Rolls and connection papers and as such it has not violative of principle of natural justice.
10. That with regard to the statement of made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition it is point of law formulated by the petitioner. None of the points of law is applicable in this case. However it is stated that as a matter of facts the Muster Rolls and other document which were seized from the possession of the said Shankar Pramanik a non government person, as a rule, those should have been under the custody of the concerning Rojgar Sewak and mate, whereas the petitioner was the Rojgar Sewak and as such in this bungling the connivance of the petitioner Rojgar Sewak cannot be denied.
11. That with regard to the statement of made in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the writ petition it is a matter of records hence requires no comments.
12. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the writ petition it is stated that although there is no allegation of forgery against the petitioner previously but on an enquiry conducted by the Executive Magistrate, it has been found that some Rojgar Sewak including the petitioner were involved in a bungling of MNREGA schemes by preparing fake Muster rolls and relevant documents with the help of one Middleman Shankar Pramanik After getting such enquiry report and having found the petitioner's involvement in the said bungling the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Pakur issued order of termination from the services of Rojgar Sewak. As a matter of fact the duties and responsibilities as prescribed in MNREGA. The Rojgar Sewak's duty is to provide a Muster Rolls at the worksite besides other prescribed duties. As such the petitioner as a Rojgar Sewak may not and cannot deny his responsibilities of being the custodian of the Muster Rolls and relevant documents. On the other hand the Muster Rolls and other documents recovered/seized from the custody of a persons who is not concerned in any way with those papers which clearly indicate the connivance and active participations of the petitioner Rojgar Sewak in the bungling by preparing fake Muster Rolls and other documents with the help of one middle man, the said Shankar Pramanik and for which FIR has been lodged criminal case has been initiated.
13. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the writ petition it is matter of record hence requires no comments. But, in the same length it is very pertinent to be mentioned here that the Muster Rolls and other relevant documents should have been in the custody of the Rojgar Sewak but which have been recovered and seized from the custody of a person who is not concerned with the MNREGA schemes. On receipt of such information as regard bungling of MNREGA schemes by preparing fake Muster Rolls and other relevant document an enquiry has been conducted by Executive Magistrate. Such enquiry report reveals that the petitioner is indulging the said bungling of MNREGA schemes in preparing fake Muster Rolls with the held of a middle man namely, Shankar Pramanik.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(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.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.