Navnit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8158 of 2025 ====================================================== Navnit Kumar S/o Late Krishna Mohan Prasad, R/o village- Line ParMirzapur, Gali No. - 3, P.O. and P.S. - Nawada, District- Nawada- 805110. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.

2.

The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Commissioner, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA)-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bihar Rural Development Society, Bihar, Patna.

4.

The District Rural Development Authority, Jehanabad. 5.

The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

6.

The Deputy Development Commissioner (D.D.C.), D.R.D.A., Jehanabad. 7.

The Programme Officer, MGNREGA, Kako, Jehanabad. 8.

Sudhir Kumar, Son of Late Raja Ram Singh, Aged about - not known, Resident of - village- Ramdani, Circle- Kako District- Jehanabad, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amit Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Pleader (19) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:- "I. For issuance of an order (s) / direction (s) or writ(s) in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.10.2023 contained in memo no 2242797 dated 03.11.2023 passed in Revision Appeal arising out of departmental letter No-

2/10 2007870 dated 21.08.2023 whereby and whereunder the Revision appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Bihar, Patna and also to quash/set aside the order arising out of Panchayat Rozgar Service Appeal Case No.

66/D.M./2022 dated 28.03.2023 passed by learned District Magistrate, Jehanabad whereunder the Learned District magistrate rejected the said Panchayat Rozgar Service Appeal and also to set aside/quash the purported order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Jehanabad vide his order contained in letter no. 1863 dated 10.10.2022 whereby and whereunder the D.D.C., Jehanabad cancelled the contract of the petitioner, Panchayat Rojgar Sevak (ID No. 113959), Gram Panchayat Pinjora and his services are terminated. And/or II. For issuance of further order(s) / direction(s) or writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service of Panchayat Rojgar Sevak without any further delay with all consequential benefits. And/or III. For necessary direction to the respondents authorities to grant all

3/10 consequential benefits to the Petitioner, such as the salary for the period the petitioner remained terminated from service and the benefit of increment for which the petitioner became entitled during the period from 10.10.2022 till date.

IV. A direction be issued upon the respondent authorities, each one of them, their servants and/or subordinates and/or agents to forthwith produce and/or caused to be produced the entire records relating to the Petitioner's case and on such production being made, render conscionable justice upon perusing the same; And/or V. For issuance of any further order (s) / direction (s) or writ(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Rozgar Sevak vide order contained in Memo No. 675 dated 03.04.2008 on contract basis and he has submitted his joining at Banwariya Panchayat, Block- Narkatiyaganj, District- West Champaran. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred from West Champaran to Jehanabad. The service record of the petitioner was satisfactory

4/10 and he was sincerely discharging his duty with full devotion and dedication. Counsel submits that one politically motivated person namely, Sudhir Kumar (Respondent no.8) has filed the complaint against the petitioner that he is a visually impaired person and Rs. 2,940/- has been credited in his account in lieu of working under MGNREGA Scheme. He further submits that due to dirty village politics, several complaints were filed against the petitioner. One of the complaint case made by respondent no.8 that he is a visually impaired person and Rs. 2,940/- has been credited in his account in lieu of work under MGNREGA Scheme.

He further complained that after the money was credited in his account, contractor came to his house and demanded the said money and told that the money for the drain digging work done under MGNREGA Scheme has been sent to his account. When he refused to return the money, he was badly abused. Thereafter, he spoke to Panchayat Rozgar Sevak (the petitioner) and further alleged to have been admitted his fault and asked him to keep the money. Counsel further submits that again on 11.07.2022, the complainant respondent again made a complaint to the District Magistrate and in lieu thereof, enquiry was set up handed over to the respondent no. 6 (D.D.C.)

5/10 subsequently, the Appointing Authority has passed order. The matter was travelled up to appeal and then revision, but the order of punishment has been affirmed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order was made to the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 2,940/- to the complainant which he has paid. But, even thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, all have decided the case against the petitioner and his contract was terminated. Counsel submits that Annexure-P/13 is the Letter No. 196 dated 25.03.2022 issued by the Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar for Bihar Rural Development Society. The procedure for taking disciplinary action against the BRDS employee and officers has been described in clause 3. Counsel submits that action has been taken in gross violation.

He also submits that the punishment prescribed under the said clause has not been imposed, rather, a non-jurisdictional order has been passed which ought to be set aside and the punishment only imposing Rs. 1,000/- cost or filing FIR can be imposed, but termination cannot be made. Therefore, he submits that the order has been passed beyond jurisdiction.

6/10 submitted, the concerned authority neither at the level of Original Authority nor at the level of Appellate Authority and nor at the level of Revisional Authority have considered the representation filed by the petitioner. Counsel, therefore, submits that all the three orders impugned are bad in law and be set aside. He further submits that neither any Enquiry Officer was appointed nor Presenting Officer was appointed nor any evidence taken place on the charge and the petitioner was punished.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that admittedly, the petitioner is a contractual employee and his term of contract is already mentioned in the appointment letter. Though, certain protection has been given which is mentioned in Annexure-P/13 i.e. Letter No. 196 dated 25.03.2022. Counsel further submits that whatever be the action taken against the petitioner has been taken completely in accordance with law. He submits that against the petitioner, there were two allegations. First is the allegation of money and second allegation is that he has taken a work for which, actually no work was done. But only on paper, the money has been taken.

6. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires to this

7/10 Court that the petitioner is a contractual employee and for taking disciplinary action against the contractual employee, AnnexureP/13 i.e. Letter No. 196 dated 25.03.2022 has been annexed. An extract of the said letter is scanned below:-

8/10

7. It transpires from the orders impugned that the explanation has been placed before the petitioner on which he

9/10 has replied. The allegation of the petitioner that Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Bihar CCA Rules, 2005') has not applied here in the present case, this Court is completely disagree, as the petitioner is not protected under the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. It also transpires to this Court that for the protection of the petitioner from the departmental proceeding, AnnexureP/13 is very much relevant in which the Original Authority is the Deputy Development Commissioner, Jehanabad, the Appellate Authority is the District Magistrate, Jehanabad and the Revisional Authority is the Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Bihar, Patna.

8. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Original Authority contained in Memo No. 1863 dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the D.D.C. Jehanabad. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. D.D.C. Jehanabad is a well reasoned order which also indicates that liberty of filing appeal has been granted within 30 days. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the appeal and his appeal was rejected vide order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure-P/9). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision which was also rejected vide order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure-P/11). From the revisional order, it transpires that whatever be the point the petitioner has raised, has been taken

10/10 care of and accordingly, revisional order has been passed by the Revisional Authority.

9. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings by all the three authorities/courts against the petitioner. Being the High Court, this Court hereby declines to interfere in the concurrent findings by all the three authorities at the factual matrix. So far as the law is concerned i.e. rule contained in Annexure-P/13, where, how the disciplinary proceeding shall be conducted has already been indicated in clause 3. It transpires to this Court that the proceeding laid down under clause 3 is not the proceeding under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. It is something different and from the orders impugned, this Court finds that the procedure which has to be taken under clause 3 of AnnexureP/13 has been followed.

10. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the factual matrix and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22/04/2026 Transmission Date NA