Facts
The petitioner, a former Programme Officer, challenged his termination order dated 30.03.2013 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Saran
Source reference: p. 2His appeal was rejected by the Secretary, Rural Development Department on 30.08.2013
Source reference: p. 2Following a previous writ petition (CWJC No. 14110 of 2018), the High Court granted liberty to pursue a review petition
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner filed a review on 07.11.2022, which was summarily rejected on 11.04.2023 without addressing the merits or jurisdictional arguments raised
Source reference: p. 3, 6Issues
1. Whether the termination order was passed by a competent authority in light of the departmental circular dated 22.09.2009
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the Reviewing Authority acted as a quasi-judicial body by failing to consider the specific grounds raised in the review petition
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The court examined the procedural guidelines established by the Rural Development Department’s circular dated 22.09.2009, which mandates that the District Magistrate-cum-District Program Coordinator is the sole authority empowered to issue show-cause notices and final orders regarding the contract of a Program Officer
Source reference: p. 5-6the court applied the principle of administrative law that a Quasi-Judicial Authority must pass a reasoned order addressing the points of contention raised by the parties to satisfy the requirements of natural justice
Source reference: p. 6-7Reasoning
The Court noted the petitioner's contention that the DDC lacked jurisdiction, as the 2009 circular vested such powers exclusively in the District Magistrate
Source reference: p. 5The State’s counter-affidavit provided an "evasive reply," merely stating that the facts were a "matter of record" without denying the jurisdictional defect
Source reference: p. 6Most critically, the Court found that the Reviewing Authority, while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, failed to evaluate or discuss a single point raised in the petitioner’s review petition (Annexure-18 series)
Source reference: p. 6By ignoring the grounds of the review, the Authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly, rendering the review order legally unsustainable
Source reference: p. 6-7Holding
The Court held that the Reviewing Authority failed to function as a true quasi-judicial officer. Consequently, the High Court set aside the review order dated 11.04.2023
The matter was remanded to the Secretary, Rural Development Department (Reviewing Authority) with directions to pass a fresh, reasoned order addressing all points raised by the petitioner within 90 days of the production of the court order
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Shashi Shaker SinghvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in