2025:JHHC:13408 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2070 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Saha Son of Satyaban Saha, resident of village + P.O.-Sahar Gram Maheshpur, P.S. - Maheshpur, District - Pakur, Jharkhand. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, District - Pakur. 3. District Superintendent of Education Cum Sub Divisional Education Officer, Pakur, District - Pakur, Jharkhand. 4. Head Master, Upgraded Middle School (Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya), Amlagachhi, Maheshpur-2, P.O. and P.S. - Maheshpur, District - Pakur. … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Rounak Sahay, AC to GP-V -------- Order No.15 /Dated: 1st May 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 450 dated 17.02.2011 and Memo No. 495 dated 24.02.2011 passed by the 3rd Respondent whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service from the post of Para Teacher without issuing any show-cause notice to him on the ground of alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence from service. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-6 to the writ application which is the order of termination which was subsequently amended/clarified vide Annexure-8 dated 24.02.2011 and submits that the said order is stigmatic in nature and no show- cause notice has been given to the petitioner before terminating him from service. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was a spot inspection/verification of the concerned school and the whole school was found locked. As a result, no students were studying in the school only due to the petitioner. However, learned counsel could not demonstrate by any document that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating him from service. He further submits that the impugned order is 2025:JHHC:13408 2 not at all punitive in nature. Moreover, the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contractual basis and his termination from service has been done in accordance with the terms of contract. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the case and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that vide Annexure-6 dated 17.02.2011 read with Annexure-8 dated 24.02.2011 to the writ application, the petitioner was terminated from service. For brevity the same are quoted hereinbelow: Order dated 17.02.2011 dk;kZy;] ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd&lg&vuqeaMy f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ikdqM+ ¼dk;kZy;&vkns'k½ mik;qDr&lg&v/;{k] loZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku] ikdqM+ ds }kjk fnukad 10-02- 2011 dks mRØfer e/; fo|ky; veykxkNh] egs'kiqj&2 ,oa mRØfer izkFkfed fo|ky; pej[kh] egs'kiqj&2 dk vkSpd fujh{k.k fd;k x;k gSA vkSpd fujh{k.k ds Øe esa mRØfer e/; fo|ky; veykxkNh ds lg;ksxh f'k{kd@f'kf{kdk Jh lat; gsEcze ,oa Jherh ljyk gsEcze rFkk mRØfer izkFkfed fo|ky; pej[kh ds f'kf{kdk Jherh vfurk nsoh ,oa Jherh :ch gkalnk vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr FksA vr,o mik;qDr&lg&v/;{k] loZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku] ikdqM+ ds vkns'kkuqlkj mDr pkjks lg;ksxh f'k{kdksa dh lsok lafonk i= fuxZr dh frfFk ls jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA iz[kaM f'k{kk izlkj inkf/kdkjh] egs'kiqj&2 dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mRØfer izkFkfed fo|ky; pej[kh can gksus dh fLFkfr esa fdlh vU; fo|ky; ls f'k{kd izfrfu;ksftr dj fo|ky; lapkyu fd;k tk,A g0 ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] &lg& vuqeaMy f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ikdqM+A Kkikad&450 @ikdqM+] fnukad 17-02-11 izfrfyfi%&lacaf/kr f'k{kd@lacaf/kr fo|ky; ds lfpo@v/;{k xzke f'k{kk lfefr@iz[kaM f'k{kk izlkj inkf/kdkjh] egs'kiqj&2 ,oa ftyk dk;kZy; inkf/kdkjh] loZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku] ikdqM+ dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kFkZ izsf"krA g0 ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] &lg& vuqeaMy f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ikdqM+A Order dated 24.02.11 dk;kZy;] ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd&lg&vuqeaMy f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ikdqM+ ¼dk;kZy; vkns'k½ bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 450 fnukad 17-02-2011 esa n`f"Vpqd ls Jh lat; gsEcze] lg;ksxh f'k{kd] mRØfer e/; fo|ky; veykxkNh] egs'kiqj&2 vafdr gks 2025:JHHC:13408 3 x;k gS tcfd Jh lat; dqekj lkgk] lg;ksxh f'k{kd] mRØfer e/; fo|ky; veykxkNh] egs'kiqj&2 gksuk pkfkg,A vr% dk;kZy; Kkikad 450 fnukad 17-02-2011 esa Jh lat; gsEcze] lg;ksxh f'k{kd] mRØfer e/; fo|ky;] veykxkNh] egs'kiqj&2 ds LFkku ij Jh lat; dqekj lkgk] lg;ksxh f'k{kd] mRØfer e/; fo|ky;] veykxkNh iढk tk, A g0 ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] &lg& vuqeaMy f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ikdqM+A Kkikad&495 @ikdqM+] fnukad 24-02-11 izfrfyfi%&lacaf/kr f'k{kd@lacaf/kr fo|ky; ds lfpo@v/;{k xzke f'k{kk lfefr@iz[kaM f'k{kk izlkj inkf/kdkjh] egs'kiqj&2 ,oa ftyk dk;kZy; inkf/kdkjh] loZ f'k{kk vfHk;ku] ikdqM+ dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kFkZ izsf"krA g0 ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] &lg& vuqeaMy f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ikdqM+A 5. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the order is stigmatic in the nature. Therefore, the principle of natural justice should have been followed before terminating the petitioner from service. It is true that the petitioner was a contractual employee; but still this contractual appointment of the petitioner will not absolve the respondents from flouting the settled principle of natural justice. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed only to the extent that since the order impugned in this writ application (Annexure-6 read with Annexure-8 to the writ application) is stigmatic in nature; as such, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3 who is directed to follow principle of natural justice before passing a fresh order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the employer. 7. It goes without saying that if the petitioner does not cooperate in the proceeding, the same shall be recorded by the competent authority. 8. With the aforesaid observation and the direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit