Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Both the Original Authority's termination order and the Appellate Authority's order are set aside as they were not justified under Clause‑7 of the contract.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, a contractual Assistant Development Officer of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), challenged his termination issued via Memo No. 3525 dated 30.05.2023, alleging it was based on an improper invocation of Clause‑7 of his employment agreement. He claimed the termination was effected without the requisite conditions of ‘no need’, abolition of post, or project closure, and that the original and appellate authorities had not considered his submissions or provided necessary documents. The respondents argued that the termination followed a show‑cause process, a Three Men Committee report, and was in accordance with the contractual provisions and applicable administrative procedures. The High Court examined Clause‑7 and found that none of its stipulated grounds applied, rendering the termination illegal and the orders of both the Original and Appellate Authorities ultra vires. Consequently, the Court set aside both orders, remanded the matter to the Original Authority to pass a fresh order within 90 days, and allowed the petitioner two weeks to file a reply to the show‑cause notice.
Issues considered
- The validity of termination of a contractual employee under Clause‑7 of the employment agreement absent the stipulated grounds.
- Whether the Original Authority's and Appellate Authority's orders were legally sound and complied with procedural requirements.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and relief under writ jurisdiction.
Subjects
- contractual employee
- termination
- Clause‑7
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- administrative law
- BIADA
- service termination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3573 of 2025
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Son of Shri Gopal Thakur, Resident of Dilkushbhag
(Rambhag), Road No. 3, Dharbhanga, P.S. LNMU, Bihar, PIN- 846008.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Industries Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority through its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna.
4. The Executive Director (South), Bihar Industrial Area Development
Authority, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Additional Advocate General (12)
For the BIADA : Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-03-2026
Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar
Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA).
Re:- I.A. No. 1 of 2025
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that he is not pressing this interlocutory application, as the same
has become infructuous.
2. As such, the present I.A. No. 1 of 2025 stands
dismissed, as having become infructuous.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
2/8
Re:- C.W.J.C. No. 3573 of 2025
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance
of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions
commanding upon the respondent authorities for the following
relief/s:-
“I. For issuance of writ in nature of
certiorari quashing the Memo No. 3525
dated 30.05.2023 wherein the contract of
employment of the Petitioner has been
terminated under clause 7 of the contract
whereby and whereunder on wrong
assumption of facts and law the services of
the petitioner has been terminated.
II. For issuance of writ in nature of
certiorari quashing the Appellate Order
dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Chairmen
of respondent authority wherein the
Chairmen has refused to interfere with
order of termination without considering
the submission and facts of the case.
III. For issuance of writ in nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondent
authority holding that the petitioner is
entitled to continue in service of the Board
without any hindrance and the petitioner is
further entitled to the salary/remuneration
as he was getting immediately prior to
issuance of the impugned resolution of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
3/8
termination.
IV. For any other relief to which Petitioner
may be entitled.”
2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the Bihar
Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to
as ‘BIADA’) though, he has entered on the post of Assistant
Development Officer by virtue of contractual appointment w.e.f.
01.09.2007 followed by an agreement prepared between the
BIADA and the petitioner dated 01.09.2007. Senior counsel
submits that the petitioner has served the department with full
satisfaction, but the allegation has been made against him that
he in connivance with two other officers viz., the Director and
the Development Officer, has entered into a lease on behalf of
BIADA with one M/s Punarsar Jute Park Ltd., by which the
BIADA suffered great loss. Senior counsel submits that in this
regard, a show cause has been issued to the petitioner in the
month of April, 2017. The petitioner filed his reply to the said
show cause on 26.04.2017 in which he has taken the plea that
the petitioner is Class-III employee, whereas, the lease was
executed only after due approval from his superiors viz., the
Director and the Development Officer. Senior counsel submits
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
4/8
that a Three Men Committee was set up for the alleged wrong.
The petitioner was demanded the certain documents by virtue of
Annexure-P/9 which was never been provided to him and only
due to this reason, he could not filed the reply before the Three
Men Committee. In result, the report of Three Men Committee
come against the petitioner and treating the Three Men
Committee a gospel truth, the petitioner has been removed.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the respondent authorities without supplying the
copy of the documents terminated the contract of service of the
petitioner vide Memo No.3525 dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure-
P/10) alleging that the petitioner has breached the terms of the
contract. He submits that the petitioner was removed in the light
of Clause-7 of the said agreement which categorically states that
the Second Party can terminate the services of the First Party
even in the midst of the contract period in case of no need, in
the event of abolition of post, or due to the closure of the project
warranting such termination thereupon. Senior counsel submits
that none of the points mentioned in Clause-7 of the agreement
is available. Therefore, he submits that the said termination is
bad. He further submits that the Government of Bihar through
General Administrative Department has issued a letter for
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
5/8
protection of contractual employees which has been approved
by the High Level Committee of the State of Bihar in which, the
services of the petitioner has also been protected for the
employees of BIADA and in case of removal, the provision of
appeal has been provided. Senior counsel submits that the
provision of appeal has been exhausted by the petitioner, but the
appellate order is also defective as, removal of the petitioner has
been made in terms of Clause-7 of the agreement, whereas, in
the entire order passed by the Original Authority and the
Appellate Authority, no ingredients of Clause-7 is available.
Therefore, he submits that both the orders i.e. order passed by
the Original Authority and order passed by the Appellate
Authority are bad in law and fit to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the BIADA, on
the other hand, submits that it is true that the petitioner is a
contractual employee and his contract has been protected by the
letter of the General Administrative Department, Government of
Bihar and provision of appeal has also been provided to him. He
submits that for the wrong done by the petitioner as alleged in
the show cause, he has submitted his reply and in the light of
receiving its show cause, a Three Men Committee was set up.
The petitioner appeared before the Three Men Committee,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
6/8
demanded certain documents, and the entire files have been
provided to him which he has perused twice and thereafter,
started demanding the certain copy of those documents. And in
this name, he has not filed his explanation before the Three Men
Committee. In result, the Three Men Committee submitted its
report within the stipulated time and on the basis of that, the
Original Authority has passed order against the petitioner which
is a reasoned order and absolutely in accordance with law. The
order of the Original Authority was also tested before the
Appellate Authority. He, therefore, submits that there is
absolutely no illegality in both the orders and the same be
affirmed, and the present writ petition be dismissed.
5. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Original
Authority, it transpires that the termination of the petitioner has
been made in light of Clause-7 of the agreement. Clause-7 of the
said agreement states as follows:-
“That the Second Party can terminate the
services of the First Party even in the midst
of the contract period in case of no need, in
the event of abolition of post, or due to the
closure of the project warranting such
termination thereupon.”
6. Upon perusal of said Clause-7 of the agreement,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
7/8
it transpires that the said termination can be made in case of (i)-
violation in the event of abolition of post, ii) due to closure of
the project. Here in the present case, none of the points are
available. Therefore, this Court is of the view that both the
orders are fit to be set aside on the ground that on the basis of
Clause-7 of the agreement, the petitioner cannot be terminated.
7. Hence, the order passed by the Original
Authority dated 30.05.2023 contained in Memo No.3525
(Annexure-P/10) and the order passed by the Appellate
Authority dated 09.12.2024 in Service Appeal No. 01/2023
(Annexure-P/12), both are hereby set aside. This Court hereby
remanded back the matter to the Original Authority to pass order
afresh, within 90 days from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order.
8. Since, the order passed by the Original Authority
and order passed by the Appellate Authority have been set aside,
therefore, only liberty and opportunity is being given to the
petitioner to file his reply to the show cause without making
unnecessary delay on any ground. The petitioner is permitted to
file his reply within two weeks from the date of production of
this order and the authorities concerned shall pass order
thereafter.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
8/8
9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and
direction, this writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 26/03/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…