IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9022 of 2010 1. NEERAJ TRIVEDI, S/O RAMESHWAR TRIVEDI, R/O MOHALLA GEETAGHAT COLONY FAZALGANJ, P.S. SASARAM TOWN, THANA,DISTRICT- ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 3. DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EAST CHAMPARAN MOTIHARI. 4. THE COLLECTOR, EAST CHAMPARAN ,MOTIHARI. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EAST CHAMPARAN MOTIHARI. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Uma Shankar Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG 4 ------ 3. 07.09.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Programme Officer on contract by an agreement dated 22.1.2008 for a period of two years. Clause 4 and 5 of the contract agreement reads as follows:- “4. You will not be entitled to your salary if you willfully neglect or refuse or from other cause or be unable to perform any of the duty under this engagement. The employer may suspend your salary during such neglect, negligence or inability as aforesaid and may further immediately terminate your engagement without giving any such notice or making such payment of salary in advance. 5. This appointment is terminable by DRDA by giving you one month’s notice in writing or payment of one month’s remuneration in lieu thereof. You may also terminate this appointment by giving one month’s notice in writing or payment of one month’s remuneration in lieu thereof.” The petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the Deputy Development Commissioner on 21.4.2010 on account of alleged deficiency in discharge of duties. He replied to the same on 26.4.2010. It may only be noted that an FIR has also been lodged against him for deficiencies in work. His order of termination has then followed on 12.5.2010 issued by the 2 District Magistrate as decided in the Establishment Committee meeting dated 27.4.2010 at the district level under the MNRGS Scheme Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to urge that the District Magistrate was not competent to order termination. This Court is not inclined to go into that question at this stage because it is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed on other grounds. The order of termination dated 12.5.2010 states that his services were being terminated for irregularities contrary to the guidelines laid down under the MNRGS Scheme, preparation of fabricated Muster Roll and misappropriation. An aspersion has been cast on the petitioner. He was given a show cause notice to which he had replied but in the order of termination there is no discussion of the cause shown by him and why it was not found acceptable. The respondents had an easier option under Clause 5 of the contract agreement. If instead of choosing the simpler option they have opted for harder option under Clause 4 to dispense the services of the petitioner by casting aspersion on him, the least that was expected was that the order of termination would contain a discussion and the manner in which the cause shown by him was discussed at the establishment committee meeting and would contain reasons why the establishment committee did not find the cause shown by him to be satisfactory. If a show cause has been issued to him and a final order has been passed without considering the cause shown by him that per se makes the order arbitrary. 3 The order dated 12.5.2010 is accordingly set aside but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)