Contractual Employees are Governed by Specific Departmental Guidelines, Not Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

The petitioner, a Panchayat Rozgar Sevak appointed on a contract basis in 2008, challenged his termination.

Following a complaint by Respondent No. 8 alleging financial irregularities—specifically that money for MGNREGA work was credited to a visually impaired person's account for work never performed—an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC).

The DDC found the petitioner guilty and terminated his contract on 10.10.2022.

The petitioner’s subsequent appeals to the District Magistrate and the Secretary of the Rural Development Department were rejected.

The petitioner contended that the termination was procedurally flawed as no formal Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer was appointed.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, a contractual employee, were required to follow the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 2005.

2. Whether the termination order passed by the authorities was legally valid and followed the prescribed procedure for contractual employees under Departmental Letter No. 196.

The court primarily applied the procedures for disciplinary action against employees of the Bihar Rural Development Society (BRDS) as stipulated in Clause 3 of Letter No. 196 dated 25.03.2022.

It established that contractual employees are governed by the specific terms of their contract and specialized departmental circulars rather than the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005, which apply to regular government servants.

The court also relied on the principle of limited judicial review under Article 226 regarding concurrent factual findings by administrative authorities.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the proceedings were void for non-compliance with the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, holding that as a contractual employee, the petitioner is not protected by those specific regulations.

The court found that the authorities correctly followed the simplified disciplinary procedure laid out in Clause 3 of Annexure-P/13 (Letter No. 196).

The court noted that the petitioner was served an explanation, to which he replied, and the Original Authority (DDC) passed a well-reasoned order.

Considering the concurrent findings of fact regarding financial irregularity/fraud by three separate authorities, the court determined there was no jurisdictional error or procedural impropriety warranting interference.

The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the administrative authorities at the factual matrix and the writ petition was dismissed.