Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9097/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9097 of 2011
=========================================================
JADAV
INDUBEN RATILAL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SN BAROT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MAULIK NANAVATI AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 21/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. SN Barot on behalf of petitioner, learned AGP
Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing for respondent.
The
service of petitioner has been terminated by order dated 23/11/2010
page 13 Annexure A, against which petition has been preferred being
SCA no. 16544/2010, which was decided by this Court on 4/5/2011 and
passed following order:
“1. This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed, with the following prayers :-
“A) YOUR
LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow the present petition of the
petitioner.
B)
YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus,
certiorari, prohibition, or any other suitable writ, order or
direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and directed the
respondent no.1 to 6 to take back present petitioner in service at
the post from which present petitioner terminated i.e. “ANGANVADI
KENDRA JALSAN-12(JALSAN GAM)”.
C)
YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus,
certiorari, prohibition, or any other suitable writ, order or
direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and be pleased to
quashed and set aside the termination letter dated: 23/11/2010 at
ANNEXURE:A.
D) Pending
hearing and till the final disposal of the present petition YOUR
LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the operation, execution and
implementation of the recruitment proceeding initiated by way of
public advertisement dated: 14 / 12 /2010 at ANNEXURE:H COLLY qua the
post of present petitioner i.e. “ANGANVADI KENDRA
JALSAN-12(JALSAN GAM)”.
E) Pending
hearing and till the final disposal of the present petition YOUR
LORDSHIP be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider
the representation of present petitioner dated:9/12/2010 at
ANNEXURE:G.
F) Any
other relief’s, which is deemed fit and proper by YOUR LORDSHIP may
pleased be granted in the interest of justice and cost of this
petition may please be quantified suitable and be paid to the
petitioner;”
2. The
petitioner is Anganwadi Karyakar and has been appointed as such on
08.04.1991. By impugned order dated 20.11.2010, the petitioner has
been removed from the post of Anganwadi Karyakar pursuant to a
surprise inspection that took place on 04.09.2010.
3. The
main grievance of the petitioner, as voiced in the present petition,
is that the impugned order has been passed without affording her an
opportunity of hearing and also that the said order is not a reasoned
one.
4. When
the matter is taken up for hearing today, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned
advocate for respondent No.3 states, upon instructions from Ms.
Avantika Singh, District Development Officer, Anand that the
competent authority will issue a notice to the petitioner and the
petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and
of filing a reply to the show-cause notice. After hearing the
petitioner and considering the reply, a fresh order shall be passed,
in accordance with law.
5. In
view of the above statement being made by the learned advocate for
respondent No.3 and as there is no dispute to the fact that no
hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned
order, the said order dated 20.11.2010, passed by respondent No.3, is
quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall make herself available
for the personal hearing and cooperate in the proceedings and
respondent No.3 shall intimate the petitioner regarding the order,
when passed.
It
is clarified that the impugned order has been quashed and set aside
on the ground that it has been passed without affording the
petitioner an opportunity of hearing and other grounds have not been
gone into.
6. The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms. Notice is discharged.”
In
respect to above referred order, learned advocate Mr. Barot brought
to notice of this Court statement which has been made by learned
advocate Mr. Munshaw for respondent no. 3 that competent authority
will issue notice to petitioner and petitioner shall be afforded an
opportunity of personal hearing of filing reply to show cause
notice. Thereafter, fresh order shall be passed in accordance with
law.
Therefore,
learned advocate Mr. Barot submitted that personal visit made by
State Program Officer, ICDS, Woman and Child Development,
Gandhinagar, in Jalsan village Taluka Khambat, Anganvadi Kendra No.
12. The State Program Officer has made report wherein at nos. 1 to
6 irregularities has been taken into account against present
petitioner. On that basis, by letter dated 13/10/2011, report was
submitted with recommendation to terminate service of petitioner.
Along with notice issued to petitioner, letter in which allegations
have been made by State Program Officer has not been supplied to
petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Barot also pointed out that no show
cause notice in respect to giving detail about allegations has been
served to petitioner.
Therefore,
it is directed to District Development Officer, Anand to supply
report of personal visit made by State Program Officer, ICDS, Woman
and Child Development, village Jalsan, Taluka Khambhat, Anganvadi
Kendra No. 12 and also issue show cause notice giving details about
allegation which was made against petitioner within a period of
fifteen days from date of receiving copy of present order.
Let
such show cause notice is to be served to petitioner. Thereafter,
respondent is directed to give an opportunity of hearing and to file
reply against show cause notice to petitioner. Then to pass
appropriate reasoned order after considering reply submitted by
petitioner within a period of two months from date of receiving copy
of present order and communicate decision to petitioner immediately.
It
is made clear by this Court that while taking fresh decision as per
direction issued by this Court earlier decision which has been taken
by respondent may not be taken into account and not to be influenced
by that.
In
view of above observation and directions, present petition is
disposed of by this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
asma
Top