- (1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2010, by which the petitioner was removed from service, has approached this Court. The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been engaged on contractual basis in Jharkhand Tribal Development Society vide Memo No. 912 dated 21.12.2002. Thereafter, he had started discharging his duty. Although the contract was initially for a period of one year, but subsequently it was renewed up to the date of removal from service i.e. up to 20.9.2010. Since the performance of the petitioner was found satisfactory, his agreement was orally extended. It has been submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking. Although the reason has been tried to be explained in the counter affidavit, but on the basis of the settled proposition of law, the reason, which has not been assigned in the impugned order, cannot be supplemented by way of filing counter affidavit. It has been submitted that the impugned order is stigmatic as such the same will create hurdle to the petitioner in getting future appointment. It has been further submitted that although the respondents have annexed copy of the show cause notice with the counter affidavit (Annexure-C), but the ground mentioned therein is not a ground for his removal from service.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been removed from service on the ground of unsatisfactory service after issuance of a show cause notice to which the reply was given by the petitioner. When the respondents found the petitioner's reply to be not satisfactory, they have taken a decision to remove the petitioner from service. He has further submitted that the impugned order is not punitive, rather the same is termination simpliciter as such it will not be a hurdle in the way of getting future appointment by the petitioner.
(3.) Heard the parties, perused the record.;