IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5685 of 2011
Monika Soren .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : M/s Shree Prakash Jha, A. Prakash, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G.
th
02/ Dated: 8 November, 2011
1.
Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, it appears that:
(i) the present petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika
on 30th May, 1983 at Sabaiya Centre under Borio Block, district
Sahibganj and thereafter, the petitioner worked sincerely,
honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents.
(ii) the respondentauthorities have received some complains
against the petitioner and therefore, on the basis of those
complains, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an
end on 16th November, 2009 vide order at Annexure1 to the
memo of the present petition.
(iii) no inquiry has been conduced before terminating the
services of the present petitioner. Bare allegation is not a proof.
There may be some allegations against the petitioner, but, these
allegations could not be presumed to have been correct. There
ought to have been some inquiry against the petitioner and on the
basis of the inquiry report, the decision ought to have been taken.
Opportunity of being heard has never been given to the petitioner.
(iv) there are some allegations that on a particular date during
inspection, the present petitioner was found sleeping. The second
allegation is that on the date of inspection, the food which is
being given to the children was not prepared. There are also
complains received against the present petitioner from the
villagers that the present petitioner is not distributing food to the
children. These allegations ought to have been proved and
adequate opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to
the petitioner. Admittedly, without holding any inquiry and
2.
without giving any opportunity of cross examination of the
witnesses, no conclusion could have been arrived at by the
respondents that the petitioner is guilty of all these charges.
2. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby, quash and set
aside the order, passed by the respondents dated 16th November, 2009,
which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition. Liberty is
reserved with the respondents to take appropriate action against the
petitioner after holding inquiry against the petitioner and in accordance
with law and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner.
3. This writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(D.N. Patel, J)
VK
