W {Writ retmon under Amcie 246t227 or the Lonstiiutxon of indta) S3 Hon biemr Saash K Agmhotri,J Present: $hrk PanKai h'wastava cawse’farthe M‘Mme: Sm Y ¢ Thakur Deputy AdvocaLe bex‘erairorthe responder‘ts No x amd 2/5tate SMA K ”wan counse fortee 'espondcnt No3 $RAL 0R§ER (Faxed on 9‘“ viay of Juiy, 2008) With consent of ieamed counsei appearing far the parties, the matter is heard finaiiy. The petitioner impugns the order dated 12-62%? (Annexure PH), whereby the contraci appointment oi the petitioner wae terminated on the ground that his work was not found satiefactoriiy. ‘3; Learned counsei appearing for the petitiener eubmite that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Project Officer in accordance with taw, pursuant to the, advertisement and proper seiection for a period at one year by order dated 25-92066 (Annexure P/E). Learned cou’nsei further submits that the appointment order itseif provides that if the work is found satisfactoriiy, petitioner may be considered for the purpose of continuation of his service. He further submits that the impugned order appears to be ihnocuous, but the same is stigmatic as show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for aiieged aiiegation of receiving bribe in the course of his service. HHGH SOUR‘I‘ 0i? SHHixTYi$GARm EILA$PUR Writ Petiwion (s) No. 3$$8 of 2637‘ ietitioner Ravindra Kumar Mahanande. Sic. Shri Raribnshyam Mahanandn Agnd abnu’r 2R years Rm “Vatr Mahma’, 2-1: Gayanr Nagar PO Shanka, Nagar Raspur Chhattxsgarh Versus Respondenis 1. State 0f Chhattisgarh, thmugh Secretary. Deott of Panchayat and Rura! Deveiopment; DKS: Shawan, maiwtraXa‘y‘a Raisur O‘hamsgarh 2. Commssmner Rojqar Guarantee YOjha Omce cf “Wmle'oprrerw Cewm'ssvoner Vkas Bhawan Cw; mm, Ratp‘" Chf‘amsgarh \ 3‘ Chéef Executive Officer, ‘Ziia Panchavat, Scuth Bastan Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. @ alx 4) The petitioner has med remy aiso denymg the aiiegations. Thereafter, 0n ihe basis of ietter dated 76-2007 sent by the Chief Executive Officer ts the Secretary, Government of Ch‘nattisgar‘n, Panchaya‘t and Gramin Vikas Vibhag {Annexure PIM}, impugned action was taken against the petitioner. Thus, looking into factuai circumstances, it is ciear tha’rtne impugned order was passed on the basis of cenain charges which make it stigmatic. Moreover, the petitioner appiied for appointment on the post ofAssistant ProjectOfficer under Nationai Rural Rojgar Guarantee Yojnat The case of the petitioner was not considered on this ground that there were certain aiiegations of bribe against the petitioner. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Hart Ram Maurya Vs. tJnion of indie and others", 5) Per contra, Shri YS. Thakur, iearned Deputy Advocate Generai appearing for the respondents No. ‘i and 2/State and Shri AK. ‘iiwari, ieamed counsei appearing for 0 the respondent No.3 categorioaiiv submit that the order is not stigmatic and the petitioner is at iiberty to apply for any post. There were certain enquiries, that were not for the purpose of punishment, but for the purpose of determination of satisfaction of work. The impugned order is neither stigmattc nor punitive. The term of the petitioner has come to an end on 24-9—2007 and the appointment of the petitioner was temporary on contract for a period of one year. 6) l have heard» 'learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto. On perusai of the impugned order dated 12-6-2007 (Annexure Pit ). it appears that the petitioner was removed onaccount of any ailegations of charges. Reiiance pieced ‘oy iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of i-lari Ram Mourya (supra), is not relevant as in that case the Supreme Court observed that there was reference to the show cause notice in the impugned order. Thus, the order was found as stigmatic. f) in the present case, 5n the impugned order there is no reference to any show cause notice or any aiiegations with regard to bribe or anything. Thus, the order is neither stigmatic nor punitive, Particuiariy, in view of the categoricai statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that this order wiii not come tn the way .- (zoos) § soc 157 f {a x of making appkication for appointmem any where, as the order is not stigmatic and punitive. The tenure of the petiticner was for a period of one year which has come to an end on 24—9—2007. 8) The petiiion is devoid of merit and does not warrant any interference with the impugned order, Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order to coets. Sd/-‘ 1 Satish K.Agnihotrt Judge 'ub