1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10869/2009 Dungara Ram. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date : 26.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Rameshwar Dave, for the petitioner. Mr.KK Bissa, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak. There are allegations against him that he issued job cards under his own signatures and he did not obtain the photograph over the job card and he changed the age of one job card holder by changing the age from 22 years to 20 years. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner's contract was terminated vide order dated 19.8.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the guidelines issued, the petitioner was competent person to issue job cards. It is also submitted that the job cards were verified by the Sarpanch first and then he issued the same. It is also submitted that the criminal case was registered against him in which he has been 2 acquitted. It is further submitted that the petitioner in this manner cannot be terminated when virtually there was no misconduct committed by him. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the enquiry was conducted and opportunity was given to the petitioner and thereafter a reasoned order passed and the petitioner has been removed. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case was well as guidelines issued for the purpose. The total allegations against the petitioner are that he issued some job cards to the persons without verifying the photograph and he could not have signed the job cards as it should have been signed by Gram Sevak and further that the petitioner changed the age of one person from 22 years to 20 years. NREGS scheme clearly says that the duty of Rojgar Sahayak will be to issue the job cards. The copies of the job cards show that the Sarpanch identified the job card and then the petitioner signed in the terms of the guidelines. Out of 4, only on one, there is no photograph. The allegation against the petitioner is that he 3 changed the age of one person from 22 years to 20 years from the record. There is no allegation against the petitioner that what the petitioner could have got by changing the age from 22 years to 20 years in the record. In the totality of the facts of the case, I do not find that there could have been any reason for taking such harsh action by the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner on such flimsy grounds. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the order dated 19.8.2009 is set aside. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to back wages but he shall be entitled to reinstatement. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya