Facts
The petitioner was a contractual Accredited Engineer under the Cachar Zilla Parishad since December 2010
Source reference: p. 3In 2018, his services were terminated for negligence and submitting false completion reports, but he was reinstated in 2021 after the High Court found a violation of Article 311 principles
Source reference: p. 3-4Within a month of reinstatement, a new show cause notice was issued on 06.05.2023 based on an enquiry report alleging gross financial regularities in MGNREGA works at Rajatilla Gaon Panchayat
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner replied, admitting he revised material bills from ₹3,00,000 to ₹29,76,530, but claimed he did so under duress from local leaders and oral instructions from the Block Development Officer (BDO)
Source reference: p. 4-5Finding the reply unsatisfactory, the Commissioner, P&RD Department, terminated his service on 13.07.2023 under Clause-9 of the contract agreement
Source reference: p. 5The petitioner challenged this termination via Article 226
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s contractual service was legally sustainable given his admission of revising bills under alleged duress
Source reference: p. 5-72. Whether the impugned termination order was passed without application of mind or violated principles of natural justice
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
The court applied the principle that the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India applies to temporary/contractual public servants when termination is based on misconduct
Source reference: p. 3It referenced Madan Gopal v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 531], establishing that such employees must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves
Source reference: p. 3The court also examined the contractual power of termination under Clause-9 of the employment agreement and the standard of judicial review for administrative actions involving admitted misconduct
Source reference: p. 5-6Reasoning
The court observed that unlike the previous termination in 2018, the current proceedings followed due process. A formal enquiry was conducted, a show cause notice was issued, and the enquiry report was provided to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 6Crucially, the court noted that the petitioner admitted to the misconduct—inflating a bill by nearly ₹26 Lakhs
Source reference: p. 6The court rejected the petitioner's defense of "duress" by local leaders and the BDO, noting that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of the complaints he allegedly filed against such pressure
Source reference: p. 6-7Furthermore, the field verification report confirmed that no MGNREGA material components existed on-site, leading to a logical conclusion of misappropriation of government funds
Source reference: p. 7Since the petitioner admitted to the act and the procedural rigors were met, the court found no lack of application of mind by the authorities
Source reference: p. 7Holding
The court held that the termination was justified in light of the admitted financial irregularities and the completed enquiry process
Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Surojit RoyvsThe State Of Assam And 3 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in