Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the termination order dated 11.9.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner had been appointed on contract basis through the order dated 1.8.2008, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. A show cause notice had been given to the petitioner on 4.9.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, calling for the explanation of the petitioner within a period of three days. The petitioner claims that he asked for supply of certain documents in order to submit an effective reply and thereafter submitted his reply on 11.9.2019, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, the respondents through an order dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) have decided not to extend the contractual services of the petitioner assigning the reason that despite giving show cause notice dated 4.9.2019, no reply has been submitted by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner having submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 11.9.2019, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider the reply of the petitioner before passing the order dispensing with the services of the petitioner.
This Court vide order dated 23.9.2019 had directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to whether the reply of the petitioner dated 11.9.2019 was on record at the time of passing of the impugned termination order dated 11.9.2019.
Today, Sri Prafull Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions made available by the Chief Development Officer, Pratapgarh through letter dated 28.9.2019, submits that an undated reply of the petitioner had been received in the office of the Block Development Officer on 11.9.2019 and the same was forwarded to the office of the District Magistrate on 18.9.2019.
Having considered the aforesaid factual matrix what comes out is that the petitioner had submitted his reply, which was received in the office of the Block Development Officer on 11.9.2019. However, the order dated 11.9.2019 dispensing with the services of the petitioner has been passed without considering the reply of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, with the consent of learned Standing Counsel, the order dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed. The District Project Coordinator (MANREGA)/District Magistrate, Pratapgarh (respondent No.3) would proceed to pass a fresh order, after considering the reply of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Rakesh (Abdul Moin, J.)