Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39842 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3355 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai,Ankit Srivastava,Chandan Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, who has been working as contractual employee of the respondents on the post of Additional Program Officer under the Manrega Scheme ever since 2010, is aggrieved by the order passed by the authority on 15.01.2025 rescinding his contract employment under the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Joint District Program Officer, Manrega/ Deputy Labour Commissioner (Labour and Employment), Jaunpur. 3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire records of service rendered by the petitioner as contract employee in Manrega Cell was unblemished and even in respect of show cause notice issued to him on 06.12.2023 in respect of digging up of a pond and the alleged irregularities he had submitted a detailed reply, yet the reply was not taken into consideration at all as there is no reference to the defence taken by the petitioner in the order impugned. He submits that the defence taken by the petitioner in his reply was that petitioner as per job assigned which was only supervisory duty to perform qua development activities carried out in a development block and as far as the construction or digging up of pond Amrit Sarovar being selected at wrong place was concerned, the place was selected by the Gram Panchayat in its open meeting. A Technical Assistant had informed this to the Program Officer and after Program Officer's approval the further approval was obtained from the competent authority. 4. It is submitted that the Program Officer is chiefly responsible for administrative and financial approval of the project and it is forwarded online on the portal. It is submitted that thereafter only that Rozgar Sewak fixes the Jio Tag as per the requirement. Muster Roll is presented before the Program Officer and the Program Officer issues Muster Roll by logging on the official website. Thus, according to the petitioner, Additional Program Officer has nothing to do in the matter. Further, stand was taken in defence regarding dispute of Muster Roll of duty vested with the Program Officer to supply the Muster Roll to service provider agency. Thus, according to the petitioner, he committed no irregularity whatsoever. 5. It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this above reply submitted by the petitioner has not even been referred to in the order dated 15.01.2025. According to him, had the reply of the petitioner accorded due consideration, the authority would not have come to conclude that petitioner being Incharge of Manrega Cell, was responsible for alleged irregularity. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents defended the order for the reasons assigned therein. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that in reply to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 06.09.2023 petitioner submitted a very detailed reply which all has been placed and argued by learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today. However, there is no whisper of the reply at all in the order impugned and petitioner has been simply held responsible for the alleged irregularities. 8. In the considered view of the Court, principles of natural justice have not been complied with in the sense that reply submitted by the petitioner was not even considered. It is a well settled rule of law that justice not only is to be done but must seem to have been done. On the touch stone of this principle, the order passed by the Joint District Program Officer, Manrega/ Labour Commissioner (Labour and Employment), Jaunpur dated 15.01.2025 cannot be held. 9. In the considered view of the Court, matter deserves to be remitted for consideration by the authority to take decision afresh after giving due consideration to the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. 10. In view of the above, the order dated 15.01.2025 is hereby quashed with consequential benefits. Respondents are directed to pass order afresh after according due consideration to the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. This time the authority shall also give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The competent authority in the matter shall proceed to decide the matter of show cause notice afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad