Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010176992023 2026:GAU-AS:7690 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4683/2023 SUROJIT ROY S/O- LATE BEHARI MOHAN ROY, VILL. WEST KUMARPARA, P.O.- RAKHAL KAHALORPAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788026. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37. 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACHAR ZILLA PARISHAD TARAPUR SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001. 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KATIGORAH DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O.- KATIGORAH Page No.# 2/7 DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788805 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr S.B. Laskar Advocate for the respondent(s):Mr. Mr. A.K. Ghose, Advocate Mr. K. Konwar, Advocate Date on which judgment was reserved :NA Date of pronouncement of judgment :01.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : operative part of the judgment?:NA Whether the full judgment has been :Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Ghose, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Konwar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the impugned office order dated 13.07.2023 issued by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Page No.# 3/7 Department, Assam, by which the contractual engagement of the petitioner as an Accredited Engineer under Katigorah Development Block of Cachar, Zilla Parishad was terminated. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam, to reinstate the petitioner to the said post. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as Accredited Engineer on contractual basis under Cachar, Zilla Parishad since 31.12.2010. He was initially posted under Salchapra Development Block and thereafter his place of posting was at different places under different development blocks. However, by order dated 24.01.2018, the petitioner was terminated from his service as Accredited Engineer on the ground that he was found grossly negligent in performing his assigned duty and that he had submitted false completion report of PMAY-G houses without verification of the same. The petitioner had challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 8618/2018 and this Court vide order dated 09.12.2020 had interfered with the termination order only on the ground that Article 311 of the Constitution of India, was not followed while terminating the petitioner. It was observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had held in Madan Gopal Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 531 that it is settled position of law that protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India applies equally to temporarily public servants as to the permanent public servants. As such, it was held that petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and his termination was held to be bad. 5. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in his service. Pursuant to the said order and on the representation made by the petitioner on the basis of the said order dated 09.12.2020, the Commissioner, Page No.# 4/7 Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam by order dated 01.02.2021 reinstated the petitioner in the post of Accredited Engineer under Katigorah Development Block. 6. However, after barely one month of joining, the petitioner was allegedly found to be involved in misconduct and as such, a show cause notice was issued to him on 06.05.2023 by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam. In the said show cause notice, it was stated that petitioner was engaged to implement various work under MGNREGA Programme at Rajatilla Gaon Panchayat and that without implementing the work he was found involved in gross irregularities and misappropriation of Government fund. With the said show cause notice, the enquiry report submitted by the In-Charge, Deputy Commissioner was also given to the petitioner. Further, by the said notice, the petitioner was asked to submit his written explanation along with relevant documents before the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam. 7. The petitioner in pursuant to the said notice submitted his reply on 19.05.2023 stating inter alia that he was a petty contractual employee working under the supervision of the Junior Engineer, Accountant and the BDO and that material bills and other documents of Rs. 3,00,000/- was submitted to the Block Office. He, however, admitted that he was compelled to revised the said bill and resubmitted for an enhanced amount of Rs. 29,76,530/- under tremendous pressure of local so called leaders and at the oral instruction of the then BDO. He further stated that local leaders had kept him locked in a room and that under duress he submitted those bills. He also stated that he reported the said incident to the Block Development Officer of Katigorah Development Block vide his letter dated 01.03.2021. He also stated that he had no financial power to Page No.# 5/7 release the payment and that he had only the power to check and verify the bills and the payment can be made by the Junior Engineer, Accountant or the BDO. 8. However, the said reply submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and by order dated 13.07.2023, the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam terminated the service of the petitioner in exercise of the power conferred by Clause-9 of the contract agreement. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Assam without any application of mind and that the said order was not a speaking order. He submitted that the petitioner was forced by the so called leaders and the BDO to revise the bill and submit it afresh and that he had no control over the incident. The Counsel submits that the petitioner had given a written complaint to the then BDO but no action was taken against the BDO by the authorities concerned, rather he submitted that the BDO was reinstated along with the accountant and he was the only one, who was penalized. He further submitted that the petitioner has been working as Accredited Engineer for so many years and that he had performed his duty well but as he admitted in his reply, he was made to revise the bills by the anti social elements. He further submitted that due to his sincere work, his services was extended from time to time by the concerned authorities. 10. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Ghose, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Konwar, learned Counsel for the respondent stated that an enquiry was done against the petitioner and a show cause notice was issued and the enquiry report was also given to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied and admitted his misconduct. He submitted that a full enquiry was undertaken Page No.# 6/7 against him to prove his guilt and his guilt is proved. He further submitted that the petitioner’s defence that he submitted a written complaint before the BDO was baseless, in view of the fact that the BDO himself was an accused person against whom, an enquiry was conducted. 11. It is seen that a contractual engagement has been entered for appointment of the petitioner as Accredited Engineer between the District Rural Development Agency, Cachar represented by its Project Director and the petitioner on 31.12.2010 and thereafter an order for contractual engagement has been issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Cachar on 31.12.2010 by which the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis under the administrative control of District Rural Development Agency, Cachar from the date of joining up to 30.03.2011 as Accredited Engineer. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that there were no written order extending the services of the petitioner after 30.03.2011. It is , however, stated that by oral agreement the petitioner services were extended from time to time as Accredited Engineer. It is further seen that the petitioner was terminated from his service on an earlier occasion too on allegations of gross negligence and submission of false completion report as stated above and only on the ground of not following the rigours of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated by this Court and he was reinstated in 2021. After a month’s of service, the petitioner was again found involved in irregularities to the effect of misappropriation of Government funds and the enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted on 23.09.2022 by the In- Charge, Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner was given the enquiry report along with show cause notice and in reply to the same, he admitted that under the pressure of some local leaders and the BDO he had revised the bill which Page No.# 7/7 was to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and he made it to the tune of Rs. 29,76,530/-. He himself stated in his reply that he revised the bill on the pressure of the BDO and others and there arises no occasion for him to write a written complaint before the BDO. The petitioner neither could place his complaint filed before the BDO in this petition. As such, the defence taken by the petitioner that he has submitted a complaint before the BDO is uncalled for. Further in the enquiry report, it was stated that during field verification of the schemes no plan and estimate were produced and that only photocopy of the bills and vouchers were received from the BDO. It was also stated that no MGNREGA material component were found in the scheme and as such, it was resolved that the entire amount of material component was misappropriated. 13. In view of the fact and in view of the baseless defence taken by the petitioner in his show cause reply, this Court finds it fit that the instant petition be dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant