1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2202/2010 Naresh Kumar. vs. State and another. Date : 22.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.SD Goswami, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's term of appointment was to expire on 28.2.2010. However, after enquiry, the report of which is placed as Annex.4, by exercising the powers under condition no.6(1) of the contract, the petitioner's service was terminated by order dated 24.2.2010 i.e. four days before his automatic end of services in the light of terms of the contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not responsible for alleged wrong payments of Rs.4,44,938/- mentioned in column no.4 of the report Annex.4. It is also submitted that putting a responsibility of obtaining signatures of Rojgar Sahayak was issued on 7.8.2009 whereas the misconduct alleged was prior to that, therefore, the petitioner was not liable to maintain any of the accounts nor was discharging any such duty. 2 I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case. It is clear from the facts that it is a term contract wherein there is condition no.6(1) also. By virtue of terms of contract, the petitioner's term was to come to end on 28.2.2010. However, it has come to an end on 24.2.2010, 4 days prior to the automatic end of the contract. However, there is finding of fact recorded and the instruction dated 7.82.009 cannot be treated to mean that for the first time, this duty was assigned to Rojgar Sahayak to maintain the accounts of the project and I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since muster-roll was not maintained by the petitioner, therefore, he could not have been held responsible. It appears that the petitioner could not properly appreciate the findings in the report Annex.4. In view of the above reasons, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya