[2025:RJ-JP:10902] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15010/2011 Durga Singh Rathore son of Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore, aged about 24 years, resident of House No. 81, Pratap Nagar, Loha Khan, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj (NREGA), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The District Programme Coordinator and District Collector, Ajmer. 3. The Addl. District Programme Coordinator (EGS) and Chief Eecutive Officer, Zila Parishad, (Rural Development Wing), Ajmer. 4. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Peesangan, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajendra Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ashutosh Udawat for Mr.Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG Mr.Aditya Sharma for Mr.Kesar Singh Shekhawat, Addl.GC. Ms.Karishma Soni for Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made against the impugned order dated 07.06.2011 by which the con- tract/ agreement of the petitioner has been discontinued. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to pass- ing of the aforesaid order, neither any opportunity of hearing was provided nor any enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:10902] (2 of 3) [CW-15010/2011] Counsel submits that under these circumstances, such act on the part of the respondents amounts to utter violation of principles of natural justice and hence, under such circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and sub- mits that prior to passing the impugned order dated 07.06.2011, a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner on 02.06.2011 and thereafter, a well-reasoned order has been passed by the con- cerned Authority, which requires no interference of this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and pe- rused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.06.2011 indicates that the allegation against the petitioner is that he obstructed in Government work and for being negligent in discharging the duties that is why, the order impugned was passed against him. This fact is not in dispute that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner against which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply, but without considering the same and without conducting any enquiry with regard to the al- leged misconduct of the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed. 6. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in Clause-6 of the agreement, any misconduct on the part of the first party, if proven, after enquiry by second party, then under these circum- stances, the contract of the first party can be terminated by the second party. [2025:RJ-JP:10902] (3 of 3) [CW-15010/2011] 7. In the instant case, when there were allegations of miscon- duct and negligence in discharging of duties, the respondents were duty bound to conduct an enquiry, but instead of doing so, straightaway, the order impugned has been passed which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 07.06.2011 stands quashed and set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for deciding the matter afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by passing a reasoned and speaking or- der. 9. Needless to observe, the respondents would do the needful exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /100