Patna HC Upholds Bihar Rural Housing Assistant’s Termination Over Alleged Political Statements During 2019 Lok Sabha Polls

Mithun Kumar was appointed as a contractual Rural Housing Assistant on 19 March 2014 under the Indira Gandhi Awas Yojana, pursuant to departmental instructions in Memo No. 165209 dated 3 October 2013

In 2019, the Deputy Development Commissioner issued notices alleging financial irregularities, political statements in favour of candidates in the 2019 Lok Sabha election from Begusarai, and unauthorised absence. Kumar submitted replies, but his services were dispensed with by order dated 6 September 2019

His appeal and revision were rejected

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, and Kumar appealed, contending principally that Memo No. 205985 dated 21 October 2014 required a different termination procedure and that the termination was founded on an unproved misconduct allegation

The Court considered Memo No. 165209 dated 3 October 2013 and Memo No. 205985 dated 21 October 2014, holding that the effect of a later administrative instruction on an existing appointment depends on its terms; absent express language or necessary implication, a later instruction does not automatically supersede the earlier conditions or retrospectively alter an existing engagement

It referred to *Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer*, (1979) 4 SCC 289, for the principle that the authority competent to remove an employee must be assessed by reference to the appointing authority and the applicable legal source of power, while recognising that its application depends on the nature of the appointment and governing provisions

Article 311 protects persons within its scope from removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, but its applicability depends on the status of the post and nature of the appointment

Relying on *Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.*, (1999) 2 SCC 21, the Court stated that whether termination is punitive depends on its substance and the circumstances: misconduct that is the foundation of termination differs from an allegation that merely motivates a decision not to continue an employee

The Court found no demonstrated basis to conclude that Memo No. 205985 displaced the authority conferred under the earlier instructions for Kumar’s 2014 appointment; it therefore upheld the finding that the Deputy Development Commissioner was competent to act

On the character of the termination, the Court distinguished the financial allegations—which, according to the later review relied on by Kumar, were not established—from the allegation concerning political statements during the 2019 Begusarai election

It acknowledged that a proved political-misconduct finding forming the basis of termination would attract procedural safeguards, but concluded that Kumar had not shown that the Single Judge erred in finding the termination sustainable under the applicable contractual and departmental framework

The Court also noted that show-cause notices and replies existed, but treated their existence alone as insufficient to determine compliance with the governing procedure

It dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and affirmed the Single Judge’s judgment dismissing the writ petition; no costs were awarded