Ashutosh Kumar, Aged about 43 years, Son of Late Braj Kishore Lal, Resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, at Project
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7036 of 2023 Ashutosh Kumar, Aged about 43 years, Son of Late Braj Kishore Lal, Resident of Jorar, Namkum Station, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District – Ranchi, Pin Code – 834010 (Jharkhand) … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Ranchi, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi 2. The Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, having its office at State Project Office, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District – Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner - cum – Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. – West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, District – West Singhbhum, Chaibasa 4. The District Education Officer – cum – District Program Officer Jharkhand Education Project, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. – West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, District – West Singhbhum, Chaibasa . CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY … … Respondents --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the State
Legal Reasoning
the case was ex facie illegal. 13. The learned counsel has also submitted that every aspect of the matter has been considered by the appellate authority and the order of the appellate authority indicates that all other persons have been proceeded against and it is not the case that the petitioner has been made scapegoat and others have been left out. 14. The learned counsel has also submitted that in spite of such serious financial irregularity, the order of termination is not at all stigmatic in nature but certainly the same is backed by the reason as mentioned in the show cause itself. He submits that the entire gamut of affairs has been admitted by the petitioner in his show cause reply. 15. The learned counsel further submits that there are two orders under challenge and at this stage, there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is neither any perversity nor any illegality in connection with the impugned action and orders of the respondents. The learned counsel has also submitted that the person who was working as Accountant-cum-Computer Operator having done such an action which leads to diversion of fund, the respondents have lost confidence on the petitioner. 16. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner was a contractual employee though working since 2006. A show cause was issued to the petitioner in connection with diversion of fund which was paid to the daily wager namely Dilip Kumar Sahu showing him as a 'vendor'. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Accountant-cum-Computer Operator and was given the additional charge of Accountant of Block Resource Centre (BRC), Goilkera. The records indicate that the reason for release of the money from the bank was that certain teachers had claimed that they had spent certain money and in order to ensure that they could get the money back, 4 the daily wager-cum-night guard Dilip Kumar Sahu was taken into confidence who projected himself as a 'vendor' and produced the bill and on that basis, the financial document were prepared. The 'maker' and the 'checker' did the needful and the reply of the petitioner indicates that it was the teachers who had uploaded the financial document and the petitioner had helped them in the matter of uploading. The fact that Dilip Kumar Sahu had not supplied any goods or services in connection with the money which he had received against the financial documents is not in dispute. 17. This Court further finds that the explanation of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner was simpliciter terminated from service. This Court is of the view that the petitioner being the contractual employee, the services of the petitioner could be terminated and the petitioner is not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. However, the required natural justice was duly complied and on the face of the explanation which was furnished by the petitioner, it indicates that the role of the petitioner in the matter was not in dispute though the petitioner was neither the 'maker' nor the 'checker' but it was only with the help of the petitioner that the financial documents were uploaded and amount could be taken out on the basis of such financial documents which were admittedly not backed by any supply of goods or services by the 'vendor' in whose name the financial documents were prepared . 18. This Court further finds that the appellate authority has also considered the entire transaction and has rejected the appeal by a detailed order. From perusal of the order of the appellate authority, it is apparent that the petitioner has been terminated and so far as the other government employees are concerned, recommendation have been made for taking disciplinary action against them. It is not a case where the petitioner has been isolated and the entire responsibility of the transaction has been fastened upon the petitioner and has been made scapegoat. This Court finds that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is a well- reasoned order. 19. As already recorded above it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order of termination is not at all stigmatic in nature although it is backed by reasons. 5 20. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and going through the records of this case this court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders or actions and the impugned orders having been passed after granting due compliance of the principles of natural justice in the matter of contractual appointment of the petitioner, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. Saurav (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 6
Arguments
--- : Mr. Anup Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate : Mr. Rajvardhan, Advocate : Mr. Sudhanshu Kr. Singh, A.C. to SC III --- 06/07.05.2024 Heard Mr. Anup Kumar, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate appearing through Video Conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - JEPC. 3. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “i. To quash and set aside the order dated 29.11.2023 contained in Letter No.AC/02/456/2023-24-4495 dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure – 09) passed by Director JEPC (Jharkhand Education Project Council) whereby and whereunder the Director, JEPC has upheld the order dated 04.02.2023 contained in Memo No.Estb.(B)/08/23/191 (Annexure – 05) by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated. And ii. Further be pleased to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits after quashing and setting aside the impugned order contained in Memo No.Estb. (B)/08/23/191 dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure – 05) and order dated 29.11.2023 contained in Letter No.AC/02/456/2023-24-4495 dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure – 09). And / or iii. Pass such other order(s) as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Accountant-cum-Computer Operator in Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya, Manoharpur on contractual basis as back as on 21.12.2006 and on account of vacancy, the petitioner was given additional charge of Accountant of Block Resource Centre (BRC), Goilkera on 17.12.2021. It is submitted that a Circular dated 24.11.2021 was issued by the State Project Director with regard to the mode and manner of spending money allocated to the district and it was clearly stated therein that if the amount is not spent the same would lapse. 6. The learned counsel submits that the teachers in the school had spent huge amount from their own pocket with a bonafide belief that they would be able to get their money back but on account of introduction of the new system, the bills were required to be uploaded prior to disbursement of the amount. 7. The learned counsel has further submitted that as per the financial discipline, the 'maker' of the financial document was the Secretary or the Principal of the school and the 'checker' was the Block Education 2 Extension Officer and so far as the role of computer operator is concerned, he was simply a 'coordinator'. 8. He submits that being a 'coordinator', the petitioner was bound by the decision of the 'maker' and the 'checker' and any financial document presented before him was required to be uploaded. 9. He submits that the teachers in order to get back the money took help of one Dilip Kumar Sahu who was made the vendor and the money was disbursed in his favour and ultimately the money was given to the concerned teachers routed through Dilip Kumar Sahu. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had only uploaded financial document and had no role to play in the manner in which the amount was disbursed to the teachers through Dilip Kumar Sahu. 10. The learned counsel submits that a show cause was issued to the petitioner dated 18.01.2023 and in his reply, he had fully explained the facts and circumstances under which the financial document was uploaded, but the actual state of affairs was not appreciated by the authority and the petitioner has been terminated. He submits that the petitioner has about 18 years of unblemished service record and the order of termination is stigmatic. 11. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had moved this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.810 of 2023 against the order of termination and he was relegated to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner filed his appeal and the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without considering the fact that the petitioner has not gained even a penny out of entire transaction and the action of the petitioner was absolutely bonafide. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner being neither the 'maker' nor the 'checker' nor the 'vendor' therefore, the petitioner has no role to play in the entire gamut of affairs. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent - JEPC has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature and clause 3 of the appointment letter clearly indicates that in case, the service is found unsatisfactory, the service could be terminated. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was the person through whom the financial documents were uploaded and therefore, the petitioner cannot wash his hands off from the illegal 3 manner in which the amount was disbursed to Dilip Kumar Sahu and was ultimately said to be given to the concerned teachers. The learned counsel submits that said Dilip Kumar Sahu was not a 'vendor' but was a night guard and his bank account was utilized by treating him as 'vendor' and the action of not only the petitioner but all other persons involved in