Tamal Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 06.03.2020 passed in WP(C) No.444 of 2015.

Brief facts are as under:

Petitioner was appointed under an order dated 30.12.2011as Computer Operator on contractual engagement under MGNREGA scheme which was done after following selection process. The petitioner continued to discharge his assigned duties for a few years after his initial engagement. On 12.06.2015 the District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGA issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that when the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Computer Operator under Block Development Officer, Hezamara R.D. Block he failed to prevent generation of 44 forged or fake electronic fund transfer orders when no physical work in relation to such payments had been undertaken. As a Computer Operator it was the duty of the petitioner to prevent any such illegalities and to inform the Programme Officer about generation of such fake or forged fund transfer orders which the petitioner failed in doing, as a result of which amounts were paid over in violation of the MGNREGA guidelines. The show-cause notice also recorded that the case of the petitioner was referred to the R.D. Department of the Government of Tripura and it was decided to terminate his service. He was, therefore, called upon to state as under:

"NOW THEREFORE, Sri Tamal Debbarma, contractual Computer Operator under MGNREGA Scheme of the o/o the BDO (Programme Officer-MGNREGA), Hezamara R.D. Block now posted at the O/O the District Programme Coordinator-MGNREGA (DM & Collector) West Tripura District; is hereby directed to submit reply to this show cause notice within seven days from the date of receipt of this letter as to why his contractual services under MGNREGA should not be terminated for failure to do his duty with dignity and as per the guidelines of MGNREGA. His reply must reach this office within seven days otherwise ex-parte action shall be taken against him."

The petitioner filed reply to the said show-cause notice under communication dated 22.06.2015 in which he claimed innocence. He contended that he was not provided the Fund Transfer Order or Digital Signature Certificate for fund transfer allotment. In absence of providing such details to the petitioner, his involvement cannot be established.

The District Programme Coordinator, MGNREGA passed an order dated 29.06.2015 by which he terminated the petitioner's contractual engagement. In such order he recorded that the petitioner's explanation was not satisfactory. There was generation of 44 fake and forged Fund Transfer orders from Hezamara R.D. Block without physical work being carried out in the field. As a result, payment of Rs.45 lakhs and odd was made which was not justified. It was recorded that being a Computer Operator it was a duty of the petitioner to prevent any such illegalities which he failed to do. His service was, therefore, terminated.

The petitioner appealed against the said order departmentally and eventually approached the High Court challenging the termination of his contractual engagement. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment holding that as a contractual employee the petitioner did not have a right to a full-fledged departmental inquiry. Further, in the present case, the department had given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to represent against the proposal for termination.

Appearing for the appellant-petitioner learned senior counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman submitted that even as a contractual employee the State cannot treat the petitioner arbitrarily. The impugned order being stigmatic a full-fledged inquiry should have been conducted. The petitioner's defence that he was never provided the Fund Transfer Order or Digital Signatures was not examined by the competent authority and lastly, the authority was prejudged. In the show-cause notice itself it was conveyed that it was decided to terminate the service of the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee opposed the appeal contending that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to explain his conduct. His explanation is not accepted. His services were found unsatisfactory. In terms of the service conditions the same was discontinued. The order is thus not a stigmatic or a punitive order but an order simpliciter terminating the engagement of a contractual employee.

The materials on record would suggest that the petitioner was assigned an important task of Computer operation. He was engaged under MGNREGA scheme. From the centre where the petitioner was in-charge of the computer operation it was found that in as many as 44 cases payments were generated and made without any work being done in the field. According to the authorities this could not have happened had the petitioner been sufficiently vigilant. After issuance of show-cause notice and inviting reply from the petitioner, his service was terminated. We do not find that the authorities have committed any error or for that matter the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the petition. As a contractual employee the petitioner did not have the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. He cannot insist on a full-fledged departmental inquiry before his contractual engagement would be terminated. He of course had a right of fair hearing before any decision which would have adverse civil consequences is taken but this in the present case has been followed. The petitioner was pointed out his failings and shortcomings and allowed to explain. His explanation was not found satisfactory. The reference to 156 instances of forged or fake payment orders in the order of termination cannot be confused with the primary allegation of 44 such instances at the centre where the petitioner was engaged as a Computer Operator. The total number of cases may be larger. At the centre where the petitioner was engaged, according to the department there were 44 such instances. It is true that in the show-cause notice there is a reference to referring the case of the petitioner to the Government and at which level the decision to terminate seems to have been taken. However, this must be seen as a tentative view of the authorities. The petitioner was terminated only after issuance of show-cause notice and finding that his explanation was not satisfactory. Thus, there is no breach of principles of natural justice also.

In the result, appeal is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.