Pratyush Anand v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8772 of 2019 ====================================================== Pratyush Anand, S/o Shyam Sundar Prasad, Resident of Shivpur, Tikiyatoli, P.s.- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna at present panchayat Rajgar Sevak, Panchayat Saraigarh, P.s.- Saraigarh, Distt.- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Rural Works Department/panchayat Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Deputy Development Commissioner Cum Addition Programme Coordinator Supaul.

3.

The District Programme Officer, Supaul.

4.

The Block Programme Officer, Chattapur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Kumar Alok, SC7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-09-2022 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

The facts as apparent from the pleadings is that petitioner was engaged as Panchayat Rojgar Sewak on a contract basis since 25.06.2011. There has been certain irregularities in execution of schemes under the MGNREG Act in respect of which an enquiry was conducted wherein the petitioner has been held liable for some amounts being the loss cause in execution of the schemes on account of irregularities committed by the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8772 of 2019(2) dt.06-09-2022 2/3 enquiry was not in accordance with law. It was based on local village politics and behind the petitioner's back without even serving a copy of the enquiry report.

The said submissions have to be considered keeping in background the nature of petitioner's existance, being contractual wherein there is no application of the CCS Rules. The order itself shows that the petitioner was sent notice and he has chosen not to participate/appear for personal hearing in the enquiry. Having done so, this Court would observe that petitioner was waived his right to natural justice and cannot be heard to complaint regarding non-compliance of principle of natural justice. Law in this regard is by now well settled by decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. K. C. Rahi reported in (2008) 11 SCC 502, paragraph 8 of which reads as follows:- "8.

In the instant case we have been taken through various documents and also from the representation dated 19-10-1993 filed by the respondent himself it would clearly show that he knew that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not to participate in the enquiry proceedings at his own risk.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8772 of 2019(2) dt.06-09-2022 3/3 from raising the question of non-compliance with principles of natural justice. In the representation submitted by him on 19-10-1993 the subject itself reads "DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES". It is stated at the Bar that the respondent is a law graduate, therefore, he cannot take a plea of ignorance of law. Ignorance of law is no excuse much less by a person who is a law graduate himself."

No case is made out for interference.

Writ application is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- U