IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6146 of 2006 RUPESH RANJAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mrs Namrata Mishra For the respondent no.2: Mr Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr Kumar Abhimanyu Pratap For the State : Mr Bhaskar Shankar JC to GP XII -------------- 8 12.11.2008 This writ application has been filed challenging the order of termination dated 26.12.2005 which has been communicated to the petitioner on 29.12.2005. The petitioner was working as a counselor in an AIDS Control programme under the scheme of the Central Government. The appointment was purely temporary and contractual in nature as would appear from Annexure A dated 30.7.2005 which was the term of the employment between the petitioner and the respondents. The reason for termination is made out in annexure 3. This petitioner has moved this court on the ground that the respondents could not have terminated the petitioner without hearing him. The grounds of termination are firstly that petitioner was absent from work from 1.12.2005 to 20.12.2005 and secondly, it is alleged that the petitioner did not join at Begusarai on 20.5.2005 to assist in the AIDS programme. The petitioner has annexed documents to show that he had applied for leave for the period 20.11.2005 to 28.11.2005, 5.12.2005 to 10.12.2005 and 19.12.2005 to 21.12.2005. These applications have been annexed to the writ application as annexures 4 and 6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the - 2 - allegation that the petitioner was on leave between 1.12.2005 to 20.12.2005 is not warranted in view of the fact that the petitioner had joined the office on 12.12.2005 and he did not take leave till 20.12.2005. Therefore, it was wrongly alleged that he was absent from the period mentioned in the letter of termination. It has further been submitted that in fact the petitioner was never served copy of the order by which he was transferred from Barh to Begusarai. The ground taken on behalf of the petitioner is that he had applied for leave and was absent from work from 19.12.2005 to 21.12.2005. Learned counsel submits that the respondents ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the allegations before terminating him. Prima facie, I find that according to the petitioner’s own pleading the petitioner was absent from work. The question that has to be determined by looking into the records is that whether absence of the petitioner was with consent of the authority or not. These facts can only be determined by the authority itself. In the circumstances, I direct respondent no.2 to issue a notice to the petitioner within two weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner should give written reply personally and appear if he so desires before respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks thereafter. Respondent no.2 may pass an order after looking into the records and the defence made on behalf of the petitioner regarding his absence from the work. I make it clear that no interim relief is being granted to the petitioner while remanding the matter for reconsideration - 3 - This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. shahid (Sheema Ali Khan, J)