Termination of Contractual Employee for Soliciting Illegal Gratification Established Through Digital Evidence Held Valid

The petitioner was appointed as a contractual Panchayat Rojgar Sewak in 2007 and was serving at Gram Panchayat Raj, Zuwafar, East Champaran

In 2023, the Mukhiya (Respondent No. 9) filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner demanded ₹4,000 and received ₹2,000 via mobile transfer from a Labour Supervisor to mark false attendance of laborers via WhatsApp

Following an inquiry by the Lokpal (MGNREGA), the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC) terminated the petitioner’s services on August 8, 2023

The petitioner challenged this before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, East Champaran, who dismissed the appeal on January 4, 2024, affirming the termination

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking reinstatement, alleging violation of natural justice and arbitrary findings

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner's contractual services was arbitrary or violated the principles of natural justice

2. Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding financial irregularity (illegal gratification) by administrative authorities warrant interference under writ jurisdiction

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of administrative law regarding judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It emphasized that in cases of contractual employment, the scope of interference is limited unless there is a procedural illegality or perversity in the decision-making process

The court also relied on the standard of "preponderance of evidence" in departmental/administrative inquiries, specifically regarding documentary evidence like mobile records and WhatsApp transcripts to establish misconduct

The court examined the evidence and the decision-making process of the lower authorities. It noted that the DDC and the Collector had concurrently found the allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification to be proved based on documentary evidence, specifically mobile phone records and WhatsApp messages stating, "Bholu, pick up the phone and send the money so that attendance can be made from the district today..."

The court observed that while some secondary allegations regarding the use of machines were not proved, the core charge of seeking a bribe for official favors was established

The court reasoned that since the authorities provided the petitioner an opportunity to explain (show-cause) and considered his defense before passing reasoned orders, there was no violation of natural justice

Consequently, the court held that it could not re-appreciate facts or act as a court of appeal over concurrent administrative findings supported by evidence

The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, ruling that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification rendered the termination valid. The writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioner