Termination of Contractual Employee Without Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Government Guidelines.

The petitioner was appointed as an Awas Sahayak (Rural Housing Assistant) on a contractual basis in Gram Panchayat Bathauli, Begusarai.

Following allegations of irregularities in the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (2016-17), the Sub Divisional Grievance Redressal Officer directed action against erring officials.

Consequently, the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Begusarai, terminated the petitioner’s services via order dated 12.02.2018.

The petitioner’s appeal to the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, was dismissed on 05.08.2020, affirming the termination.

The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the termination order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner was legally sustainable given it was issued without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

2. Whether the Deputy Development Commissioner had the jurisdiction to terminate the contractual services under the prevailing government guidelines.

Clause 7 of the Government Guidelines governing the contractual employment of Gramin Awas Sahayak, which stipulates that termination for unsatisfactory service or misconduct must be preceded by a recommendation from the BDO, a review by the DDC, and a formal hearing (natural justice).

The rule mandates that the final reasoned order must be passed by the District Magistrate, who is the competent authority.

Precedent set in CWJC No. 10439 of 2020, which held that orders passed by the DDC instead of the District Magistrate are non-sustainable.

The Court observed that the impugned termination order was passed by the DDC without providing the petitioner any opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Upon examining the statutory guidelines (Clause 7), the Court found that the DDC shifted from his role as a reviewing authority to a deciding authority, usurping the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate.

Following the ratio in CWJC No. 10439 of 2020, the Court held that the procedural safeguard—requiring the District Magistrate to pass a speaking order after a hearing—was entirely bypassed.

The appellate authority also failed to rectify this jurisdictional error, rendering both the original and appellate orders "arbitrary" and "without jurisdiction".

The matter was relegated to the District Magistrate, Begusarai, who was directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim afresh in light of the relevant guidelines and judicial precedents within eight weeks.

The Court further ordered that if the petitioner's case is found to be identical to the cited precedents, he should be accorded the same consequential benefits.