- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 23.2.2011 issued by the respondent no. 3 pertaining to termination from services.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as described in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Rojgar Sewak by the respondent no. 2 for the Panchayat of Baridih and Armai respectively situated in the district of Gumla in pursuance to the letter dated 4.6.2007 issued by State Government vide order dated 27.8.2007. After the said appointment the petitioners were discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of their superior authorities. Due to unsatisfactory work the services of the petitioners were terminated by respondent no. 2 by order dated 23.2.2011 vide Annexure-2 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination dated 23.2.2011, the petitioners left with no alternative and efficacious remedy approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of their grievance.
(3.) Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been inter alia submitted that the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued a letter dated 22.10.2008 that the renewal/extension of the services of the officer/staff appointed on contract basis will be done by a district level appointment committee which will review the annual performance of the officer/staff appointed on contract basis. If the performance of any officer/staff is found to be satisfactory then the renewal/extension shall be done otherwise in case of unsatisfactory performance the services of the officer/staff will not be renewed/extended and accordingly, the services shall be terminated a' per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla issued a letter dated 14.8.2007 to the petitioner, in which it was mentioned that the officer/staff who has been appointed on contract basis can be terminated. It has been submitted that the Block Development Officer, Chainpur vide letter dated 8.2.2010 requested the respondent no. 2 (Deputy Commissioner, Gumla) to cancel the contract of the petitioner no. 1 who was absent from his duty without prior permission and was also absent in the training workshop. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.2.2010 issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gumla. It has further been submitted that the performance of the petitioner in MNREGA is unsatisfactory from all aspects and were suffering hardship and provisions of MGNREGA were not being complied due to his gross negligence and wilful disobedience of orders given by Block Development Officer. Since performance of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and another show cause bearing letter dated 13.10.2010 was issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gumla to the petitioner but no reply was given by the petitioner. Again Block Development Officer, Chainpur issued a show cause vide letter dated 30.11.2010 in which it has been mentioned that there has been no improvement in the attitude of the petitioner in MGNREGA work. Similarly, so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned on finding unsatisfactory performance, the Block Development Officer, Gumla issued a show cause vide letter dated 11.6.2009 but no reply was given by the petitioner. Again Block Development Officer, Gumla issued a show cause vide letter dated 3.7.2009 wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner is not performing the MGNREGA work properly and is violating the provisions of MGNREGA.;