IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A. No. 102 of 2014

Safique Ahmed, Son of Late Md. Shahidullah, resident of

Sitarampur, P.O.-Bhawanipur, P.S.-Pakur (M), District-Pakur
… … Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. +P.S. +District-Pakur
3. The Block Development Officer, Pakur, PO.+P.S.+District-Pakur
4. The Assistant Engineer, P.O. +P.S. and District-Pakur
5. The Junior Engineer, P.O. +P.S. and District-Pakur
... ... Respondents/Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
-----
For the Petitioner: M/s Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
Indu S. Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents: J.C. to AAG
-----
th
05/Dated 16 March, 2016
Per D.N.Patel,J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.1317 of
2013 dated 11th February, 2014, whereby the petition preferred by this
appellant was dismissed whereby the order of termination of the services
of this appellant as Rojgar Sewak was held as a valid one and, therefore,
the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was working
as Rojgar Sewak and under MGNREGA scheme, construction of well was
going on and looking to the MGNREGA scheme Clause 16, which is at
page 38 of this memo of appeal, several verifications, etc were to be done
by the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer, because several technicalities
are involved in the construction of the well. The Deputy Commissioner,
Pakur had written a letter to the Block Development Officer of Pakur,
District Pakur on 3rd May, 2012, which is annexed as Annexure 2 to the
memo of appeal and it was pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner that
there are certain defects in the construction of the well. If these defects are
read, it is too technical in nature for which the Rojgar Sewak is not
responsible at all, because it involves highly engineering aspects which
are to be monitored by the Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer as per
clause 16 of the Scheme (page 38 of this memo of appeal). Explanation
 -2-
was sought for by the Block Development Officer, Pakur from all the
concerned officers including this appellant and ultimately, Block
Development Officer, Pakur reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur
vide his report dated 12th May, 2012 (Annexure 3 to this memo of appeal)
that there is some deviation in the construction of the well and this is
because of physical situation and due to geographical situation of the land
and, therefore, necessary band was given as per the requirement on the
site by the Junior Engineer and there is no fault lies on the part of the
Rojgar Sewak. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that
this appellant is a Rojgar Sewak and he is not the Engineer at all.
Nonetheless, directly, without holding any enquiry and without any enquiry
report, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur terminated the services of this
appellant vide order dated 30th May, 2012 which is at Annexure 6 to the
memo of appeal. Thus, there is no fault lying on the part of the appellant.
Appellant is not an Engineer at all. Super-Technical aspects have been
mentioned in the letter by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 3rd May,
2012 (Annexure 2 to the memo of this appeal) which can be understood by
Engineers only and without holding any enquiry and without any report of
the Enquiry Officer, directly the conclusion has been arrived at by the
Deputy Commissioner, Pakur that Rojgar Sewak, i.e. appellant, is
responsible for the faults committed in the construction of the well. These
aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned
Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1317 of 2013 dated 11th February, 2014 may
be quashed and set aside, so far as this appellant is concerned.
3. Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that no error has been
committed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur while passing the order
dated 30th May, 2012 (Annexure 6) as well as, no error has been
committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition
preferred by this appellant mainly for the reason that adequate opportunity
of being heard was given to the appellant and ultimately his explanation to
the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 3rd May, 2012
(Annexure 2 to the memo of this appeal) was found unsatisfactory and,
hence, the order of termination of services of this appellant was passed on
30th May, 2012 (Annexure 6). It is further submitted by the counsel for the
respondents that there is a total deviation in the construction of the well
from the basic requirements which have been mentioned in the letter of
 -3-
the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 3rd May, 2012 for which this
appellant, who was working as Rojgar Sewak, was liable. This matter has
been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this
Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Counsel for
the appellant further submitted that this appellant was working on
contractual basis.
4. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the
order passed by the learned Single Judge In W.P.(S) No. 1317 of 2013
dated 11th February, 2014 mainly for the following facts and reasons:-
(I) This appellant is an original petitioner, who instituted W.P.(S)
No. 1317 of 2013 challenging the order of termination of his services
by Deputy Commissioner, Pakur vide order dated 30th May, 2012
(Annexure 6 to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal). This writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated
11th February, 2014. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been
preferred by the original petitioner.
(II) It appears that this appellant was working as a Rojgar Sewak.
This appellant is not an Engineer. This appellant is also not
concerned with the designing of the well. This appellant is also not
concerned with the verification of the construction of the well as per
design, because it will be too technical for him to understand the
engineering measurements of the construction of the well. The
defects in the construction of well has been pointed out by the
Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in his letter dated 3rd May, 2012
(Annexure 2) in which there is a reference about the band to be
given in the well with a typical type of measurement and other
defects which are more of the nature of deviation in the engineering
specification have been mentioned. It appears that looking to the
scheme under which the construction of well was going on, it was
liability of the Junior Engineer as per Clause 16 which is at
Annexure 8 to the memo of this appeal. It was duty of the Junior
Engineer/Assistant Engineer whether a proper band was given or
not. Thus, it appears that there was no fault lying on the part of this
appellant for verification of the engineering measurement in the
construction of the well. Even this appellant could not explain why
there was a deviation in the construction of well in an original
 -4-

engineering measurement when explanations were sought for by the

Block Development Officer from various persons including this
appellant.
(III) It further appears from the report of the Block Development
Officer dated 12th May, 2012 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this
appeal) that there is some deviation in the construction of well due
to physical situation and geographical position of the land and the
nature of the soil, etc. It has been pointed out by the Block
Development Officer that the deviation was made as per the
direction given by the Engineer and no fault lies on the part of the
Rojgar Sewak who is this appellant.
(IV) Thus, it appears that the appellant is not responsible for
deviation in the construction of well from original engineering
measurement. These aspects of the matter have not been properly
appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise also, the
report given by the Block Development Officer is crystal clear that
why there was a deviation in the construction of well. In fact, there is
no fault lying on the part of anyone, much less on the part of this
appellant, because deviation was made as per the direction given by
the Engineer and this appellant is not that Engineer. This appellant
is only a Rojgar Sewak and the Block Development Officer's report
has been brushed aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur
without assigning any reason and directly the order of termination of
the services of this appellant has been passed on 30th May, 2012.
This is not permissible in the eye of law. There is no justifiable
reason with the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur to come to the
conclusion that Rojgar Sewak is liable for the deviation in the
construction of well from original engineering measurement. It has
been mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in the order
dated 30th May, 2012 that the report given by the Block
Development Officer is not up to the mark of satisfaction and,
therefore, it was brushed aside, but no reason has been given why
the Deputy Commissioner is not agreeable with the report given by
the Block Development Officer dated 12th May, 2012 (Annexure 3)
 -5-

5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we hereby

quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
(S) No. 1317 of 2013 dated 11th February, 2014. We also quash and set
aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur dated 30th
May, 2012 ( Annexure 6 to the memo of appeal)
6. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

(D.N.Patel, J.)

(Amitav K.Gupta, J.)

s.m.