IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16412 of 2009 1. MD. ARIF REZA S/O MD. MOHIUDDIN VILL- MOULVI TOLA, WARD NO. 18, P.S. ARARIA, DISTT. ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ARARIA, DISTT. ARARIA 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER ARARIA, DISTT. ARARIA ----------- 2. 11.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis under District Rural Development Agency. On certain allegations related to the discharge of his duty a show cause notice was issued to him by the Deputy Development Commissioner on 8.10.2009 to be replied within three days. On 5.11.2009 the impugned order has been passed dispensing his services inter alia stating that he has not shown any cause, presuming that he had no defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner from Annexure-8 dated 10.10.2009 written by the Programme Officer, Araria Block submits that the show cause notice which was received by the petitioner on 10.10.2009 was in fact replied to but erroneously submitted before the Programme Officer. Subsequently, cause has been shown before the Deputy Development Commissioner also, though beyond time. It is next urged that the matter for removal did not vest with the Deputy Development Commissioner alone but had to be considered and approved by a Committee. The impugned order dated 5.11.2009 by the District Magistrate-cum-District Programme Officer does not state that the Committee as provided for under notification dated 25.5.2009 had 2 considered the termination and approved it. It is further submitted that the Programme Officer on 10.10.2009 had made a recommendation for accepting the explanation given by the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that under the Government notification dated 25.5.2009, in appropriate cases even a warning only may also suffice. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application. In view of the fact that the petitioner is stated to have submitted an explanation earlier before an inappropriate authority followed by submission before the appropriate authority, a recommendation in his favour, the minimum punishment permissible may be a warning also, this Court directs that the impugned order dated 5.11.2009 be kept in abeyance and the matter be remitted to the appropriate authority for fresh consideration when the impugned order shall finally merge in the fresh reasoned and speaking order, which may be passed in terms of the Government instruction dated 25.5.2009 regulating appointment of persons like the petitioner on contract. Let the same be done within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)