2025:JHHC:29375 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.4701 of 2021 ----- Anupam Kumar Mishra, son of Shri Shrimohan Mishra, resident of village Sanhauli, PO Chanda, PS Thakur Gangti, District Godda, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur 3.The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Pakur, PO, Ps and District Pakur, Jharkhand 4.The Block Development Officer, PO, PS and District Pakur, Jharkhand … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate …...... 11 /22.09.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has been removed from service after cancelling the contract of Block Program Officer, MNREGA. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 459 dated 27.11.2019 (annexure-6) issued by the respondent-Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Pakur as well Memo No. 457 dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure-5) by which the petitioner has been removed from his service. The petitioner further prays for his reinstatement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that punishment is absolutely harsh and does not commensurate with the alleged misconduct. He submits that as a departmental inquiry was not initiated against the petitioner, there is violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that in fact no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor a proper show cause notice was issued asking him to explain as to why not his contract be 2025:JHHC:29375 2 terminated. In absence of the said show cause notice he could not have been terminated. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis. Though initial contract period was for one year but the same was extended on yearly basis. The petitioner was transferred to Pakuria block from Hiranpur block. The petitioner handed over the charge at Hiranpur but he did not join the transferred post at Pakuria. Several letters were given to him, explanation was sought for but he did not comply the order nor did he join, thus, vide impugned communication his contract was terminated. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that admittedly the petitioner was appointed for a year on contract basis but contract was being extended/renewed from time to time. 6. On 13.07.2019 he took 16 days leave on medical ground. Further on 06.08.2019 he prayed for 20 days medical leave which came to an end on 26.08.2019. Again he prayed for medical leave on 03.10.2019 for a month. He also prayed that he may be send back to Hiranpur. His request could not have been acceded to as persons were already working at Hiranpur as they have joined their new post. Further on 17.10.2019 he was directed to join his place of posting at Pakuria by 30.10.2019. Inspite of the said direction the petitioner did not join the post. In the said notice it was clearly mentioned that if the petitioner does not joined by 30.10.2019 his contract will be terminated. As the petitioner did not join, his contract was terminated. 7. I find that the petitioner was given several opportunities to join but he did not join. His prayer to allow him to work at Hiranpur clearly suggests that he was in a position to work but he wanted to stay at Hiranpur, not at his transferred place at Pakuria. Since the petitioner did not join at transferred post for a very long period, his contract was terminated. 2025:JHHC:29375 3 8. I find no illegality in terminating the contract. This termination of contract cannot be said to be stigmatic. 9. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 22.09.2025 Tanuj/CP-2