Termination order set aside where authorities failed to consider the employee’s specific defence and assigned role.

The petitioner was included in the panel of Executive Assistants and appointed by memo dated 27 September 2013.

He was subsequently posted in the Supply Section, where ration cards were processed.

Following a complaint regarding irregularities in the preparation of seven ration cards during the financial year 2021–22, the District Magistrate issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that his role was limited to printing and distributing ration cards, whereas search, data entry, document verification, and creation of the cards were undertaken by vendors.

His explanation was rejected, stating only that it was unsatisfactory, and he was removed from service by order dated 08 April 2023.

The Divisional Commissioner dismissed his appeal on 12 October 2023.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the orders removing the petitioner from service and dismissing his appeal were sustainable when the authorities failed to consider his specific explanation that he was responsible only for printing and distribution of ration cards, and not for their search, entry, verification, or creation.

Whether the District Magistrate was required to reconsider the petitioner’s explanation before passing a fresh order concerning the alleged irregularities in the ration cards.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, particularly the requirement that an administrative or disciplinary authority must consider and give reasons for rejecting the material defence raised by an affected person.

Although the State relied on the limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning contractual employment, citing Jeetendra Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 13086 of 2017, the Court recognised that judicial review remains available where the decision-making authority fails to consider relevant material or passes a non-speaking order.

The Court did not decide the petitioner’s substantive culpability but directed reconsideration after proper consideration of his explanation.

The Court noted that the ration-card process involved two distinct stages: first, search and entry, which were undertaken through vendors; and second, printing and distribution, for which the petitioner was responsible.

The petitioner’s explanation, as well as the explanation of the Sub-Divisional Officer, supported this distinction.

However, neither the District Magistrate nor the Divisional Commissioner addressed this material defence.

The District Magistrate merely stated that the petitioner’s explanation was unsatisfactory, without examining whether the petitioner had any role in the alleged irregularities.

Since the authorities failed to consider a relevant and specific defence, the impugned orders suffered from non-application of mind and could not be sustained.

It set aside the District Magistrate’s removal order dated 08 April 2023 and the Divisional Commissioner’s appellate order dated 12 October 2023.

The District Magistrate, Patna, was directed to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the petitioner’s explanation, particularly his asserted limited role in the ration-card process.