IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6360 of 2010 1. KUSHESHWAR RAVIDAS, S/O SRI BANARSI DAS, R/O VILLAGE-SADIKPUR, POST-JIAN BIGHA, P.S.- SHEIKHOPUR SARAI, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA (BIHAR) PIN-811103. 2. PRAKASH KUMAR, S/O SRI SUKHDEO PRASHAD, R/O VILLAGE-DATTRAUL, POST-DATTRAUL, P.S- PAKRIBARAWAN, DISTRICT-NAWADA (BIHAR) PIN- 805124. 3. PRAVIN KUMAR SHARMA, S/O SRI SUDHIR SHARMA CARE OF PRAGYA PUSTAKALAYA, MAKDUMPUR SHEIKHPURA, (BIHAR) PIN-811105. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. 7. THE DIRECTOR, ACCOUNTS, ADMINISTRATION AND SELF-PLANNING, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. 8. THE TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK- CHEWARA, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. 10.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING DIVISION, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 04.01.2011 The three petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the order contained in memo no.23 dated 30.1.2010 (Annexure-7), by which their engagement as Panchayat Rozgar Sewak on contract basis has been cancelled on the ground of serious irregularities committed by them. The 2 petitioners were initially engaged on contract basis as Panchayat Rozgar Sewaks under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’) for two years. Their working was found satisfactory and, therefore, vide Annexure-5 dated 31.10.2009, their engagement was further extended by two years. However, soon thereafter they received the said impugned order dated 30.01.2010 by which their engagement was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only after finding their functioning satisfactory their engagement was extended for two years more. Therefore, only one month’s after there could be no valid reasons for their disengagement. He submits that the petitioners were never apprised of the reasons for their disengagement and were not pointed out with regard to any irregularity committed by them and without any opportunity to them to explain their conduct, the said order was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard refers to a letter of the Principal Secretary of the Rural Development Department to all 3 the District Magistrate-cum-District Programme Coordinators and to all Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Additional District Programme Coordinators, as contained in Annexure-12. He points out that in this letter it was specifically mentioned that engagement of persons working under the Scheme could be cancelled only after due notice to them to file their explanation with regard to any lapses found on their part. He submits that contrary to this stipulation the engagement of petitioners have been cancelled without any notice to them and without giving them any opportunity to explain their conduct which the authority may have been found as irregular. Learned AAG-VIII appears for the respondents. He submits that the terms of the contract itself contains the clause that the services of such persons engaged under the Scheme could be cancelled without giving any notice. He particularly refers to clause-4 of the agreement of the contract, as contained in Annexure-1. He also submits that thorough enquiry was held in respect of implementation of the Scheme in the Panchayat and several 4 lapses were found on the part of different persons engaged for implementation of the Scheme which included the petitioners also. He submits that in the enquiry the petitioners and other Panchayat Sewaks were noticed and were directed to produce the records for the purposes of enquiry. The Panchayat Sewaks produced the records and participated in the enquiry on the basis of which the report was submitted in respect of the lapses committed by different Panchayat Sewaks and other persons engaged in the Scheme. The report was submitted to the Vigilance Department where it was considered and by letter dated 21.12.2009, as contained in Annexure-G, the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura was directed steps should be taken for immediate cancellation of contract of such Panchayat Sewaks, Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Programme Officers etc. and strict action should be taken against them and communicated to the Vigilance Department. Pursuant to the said letter, the engagement of the petitioners have been cancelled as in the enquiry it was found that they have committed lapses in the 5 functioning. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that clause-5 of the agreement itself shows that appointment under the agreement was terminable by DRDA by giving one month’s notice in writing or payment of one month’s remuneration in lien thereof etc. He also refers to clause-23 of the agreement which provides that instructions etc. issued by the DRDA from time to time, in respect of service conditions etc. of the persons engaged in the Scheme shall have overriding effect on the terms and conditions of this agreement. He submits that in view of this clause-23 of the agreement, the letter, as contained in Annexure-12, has a overriding effect over clause-4 of the agreement and, therefore, notice to show cause was essential before the petitioners engagement could be cancelled. It is true that in the enquiry implementation of the Scheme in the concerned block was enquired into in detail which included the functioning of all the persons engaged in the block in respect of the Scheme and also included the petitioners. It may be 6 that in the enquiry some lapses may have been found to have been committed by the petitioners also. But the fact remains that in respect of the said lapses petitioners were not given notice to explain their conduct. Apparently, enquiry was general and sweeping. On the basis of said enquiry, some lapses may have been found against individuals in their functioning, but that itself cannot be a basis for cancellation of their engagement without giving them individual notices to explain their conduct which may have been found irregular in the said enquiry. Annexure-12, the said letter of the Department dated 22.09.2009, also makes it clear that contractual appointment made in the Scheme could be cancelled by the DRDA only after giving due show cause notice to the concerned persons which admittedly was not done in the case of the petitioners. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 30.01.2010, as contained in Annexure-7, cancelling the engagement of the petitioners is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of instructions 7 issued by the Department, as contained in Annexure-12. The same is accordingly quashed. The respondents are given liberty to issue individual notices to the petitioners in respect of the lapses which they claim as committed by the petitioners in their functioning as Panchayat Rozgar Sewaks and consider their individual show cause, if filed any, and thereafter only pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Such notices shall be issued to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall file their reply to the same within 15 days from receipt of the said notices and thereafter fresh orders shall be passed by the respondents in accordance with law, after considering the show cause of the petitioners, within one month from the date of receipt of show cause from the petitioners. In case, any of the petitioners does not file his show cause, it will be presumed that he is not interested in the matter and appropriate order shall be passed. The total process must come to an end within ten weeks from the date of 8 receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioners shall stand reinstated on their posts and shall be entitled to their remuneration pursuant to their reengagement, vide Annexure-5. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)