Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER 's contractual engagement as Assistant in the Child Development Project Office, Deori has been terminated by the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 bearing memo No. 1294 (Annexure -5) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, on the grounds that his service was not satisfactory and there are allegations of misappropriation of Government money, for which FIR being Deori P.S. Case No. 107/2013 dated 30.07.2013 has also been lodged under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit). Petitioner admittedly was engaged on contractual basis vide Annexure -1 appointment letter dated 11.01.2008 which apart from other conditions stipulates that in case of unsatisfactory service, by giving one month's prior notice, his services can be terminated. The impugned order records that the petitioner was issued a notice on 25.07.2013 on the charges relating to misappropriation of Government money relating to Poshahar Scheme. There were other charges also which are enumerated in the impugned order. Petitioner failed to submit his reply within one week's time. After institution of the FIR for the said allegations, he was also sent to jail. After being released from jail, though he reported in the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, Giridih, but again failed to submit his explanation. In such circumstances, under the relevant conditions of the contractual engagement and his services being found unsatisfactory and on charges of misappropriation of Government money, his contractual engagement has been terminated by the impugned order passed on 27.08.2013 after issuance of one month notice. The same is being assailed by the petitioner on the ground that no copy of the enquiry report of the District Social Welfare Officer was served to the petitioner, nor any show -cause was asked and the charges of misappropriation are false and frivolous.
(3.) THIS has been denied by the respondents by making categorical statements that the petitioner was asked to furnish his reply to the show -cause in respect of the same charges and he failed to file his reply within the time and even thereafter. Since the charges against the petitioner are of serious nature which renders his services unsatisfactory, respondents are justified in terminating his contractual engagement as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter.;