[2025:RJ-JP:4000] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6937/2023 Narendra Kumar Jangir S/o Sh. Radheshyam Jangid, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Chudina, Tehsil Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu. 3. District Programme Coordinator And District Collector, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu. 4. Additional District Programme Coordinator Cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu. 5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Udaipur Wati, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Virendra Lodha, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ankit Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/01/2025 1. The present writ petition is directed against the office order dated 09.02.2023, whereby petitioner’s engagement as a contractual employee under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (hereinafter referred to as “the MGNREGA”) has been dispensed with. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was engaged as a Junior Technical Assistant (contractual employee) by agreement [2025:RJ-JP:4000] (2 of 5) [CW-6937/2023] dated 23.09.2008 executed between the petitioner and the respondent-State. 3. Thereafter, within a period of less than 48 hours, petitioner’s contractual engagement was done away with by the respondent No.3 per viam impugned order dated 09.02.2023. 4. Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have illegally terminated petitioner’s services; neither any inquiry was conducted nor any notice in this regard was issued. 5. He argued that the respondents have proceeded against the petitioner in a hasty and unjustified manner - merely on basis of some news. 6. Inviting Court’s attention towards clause No.6.1 and 7.1 of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the State- Government, learned counsel argued that the respondents were required to adhere to principles of natural justice and conduct an inquiry and give notice before terminating the services. 7. Mr.Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC, learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand argued that clause 6.1 of the agreement does not contemplate any inquiry to be conducted after hearing the employee concerned, it only speaks of inquiry to be conducted by the second party. Principles of natural justice are not required to be adhered to, argued Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. A perusal of the office order dated 31.01.2018 reveals that no sooner had four regular employees of the respondent – Jila [2025:RJ-JP:4000] (3 of 5) [CW-6937/2023] Parishad been placed under suspension (on 31.01.2018) in less than 48 hours, the petitioner’s contractual engagement was brought to an end. 10. Such hasty action on the part of the respondents clearly shows that no inquiry worth the name has been conducted and the respondents have disengaged petitioner for no just reason. Had any inquiry been conducted, it was upon the respondents to place the same on record while filing the reply. 11. Non-observance of principles of natural justice is writ large in the present matter. 12. Maybe, a departmental inquiry is not required to be conducted against the petitioner, who was a contractual employee, but still a summary inquiry followed by a show-cause notice to the petitioner is a sine-qua-non, so that the petitioner is informed about the allegations levelled against him. 13. The termination order is based on condition Nos.6(i) and 7(ii) of the agreement between the parties. 14. Condition Nos.6 & 7 of the agreement reads as under:- “6. ACTION AGAINST FIRST PARTY: (i) Any misconduct on the part of first party, if proven, after an enquiry by second party, shall entitle second party to terminate contract services of first party. (ii) Any unauthorized or willful absence from duty for a period of 7 days would entitle second party to terminate contract without any notice. (iii) Any loss or misappropriation of funds due to negligence or deliberate conduct of the first party shall be recoverable from the monthly contract amount and if [2025:RJ-JP:4000] (4 of 5) [CW-6937/2023] the same can not be adequately be recovered from it then as an arrear of land revenue. 7. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT: (i) The contract can be terminated with notice of one month by the first party or by depositing one month’s package/contract amount in lieu of notice. (ii) Second party or any authority approving contractual appointment with first party shall be competent authority for termination of contract or deduction from the consolidated monthly package. (iii) The agreement/contract period shall stand terminated automatically on expiry of stipulated period if not extended prior to stipulated date. First party will not be entitled for any claim for service rendered after expiry of stipulated date of contract. (iv) In case of any loss or misappropriation of Government funds by the first party, contract shall be terminated by the second party.” 15. A bare look at the condition No.6(i) of the agreement shows that the contract of an employee can be terminated after conducting an inquiry and the misconduct having been proved against him. Clause 7(ii) of the agreement specifies the authority competent to pass order of termination of contract. 16. It is not is dispute that neither any notice was served on the petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned order nor any inquiry was conducted. The impugned order, on the face of it, is contrary to the conditions of the contract which governs the parties. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order 09.02.2023 being contrary to the [2025:RJ-JP:4000] (5 of 5) [CW-6937/2023] terms of the agreement as well as the principles of natural justice, is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. The respondents would nevertheless be at liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. 19. The present writ petition is allowed. 20. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /118