IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P (S) No. 845 of 2011
Pramila Devi ..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
-----
For the Petitioner - Mr. V.K.Tiwary
For the Respondents - Mr. J.C to S.C-II
-----
3/20.7.2011
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order contained
in Letter No. 497 dated 12.8.10 (Annexure-9), issued by the Child Development
Project Officer, Dumka (Sadar), whereby the petitioner has been informed that her
selection as Anganbari Sevika is cancelled in view of the Letter No. 765 dated 7.8.10
issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dumka.
According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Anganbari Sevika for Pakaria
Anganbari Centre, District-Dumka on 22.5.1999 after due selection and approval of
the competent authority. The petitioner has been working in the said Anganbari Centre
as Anganbari Sevika since then. There was some complain regarding the dispute
between the Sevika and the Anganbari Sahaika of the said Centre in the year 2009.
An enquiry was conducted and it was found that the Anganbari Sahaika was creating
some trouble in smooth functioning of the said Anganabri Centre. However, the
Anganbari Sahaika was dissatisfied and she was preferring representations here and
there. Under the said ground of difference between the Anganbari Sahaika and the
petitioner, the selection of the petitioner as well as of Anganbari Sahaika has been
cancelled by the impugned Letter No. 497 dated 12.8.10.
The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been removed from the post
illegally and arbitrarily without giving any notice informing the reason and without
affording any opportunity of defending herself. It would be evident from the impugned
order (Annexure-9) that some stigma has been cast against her and the allegation has
been made and on that basis the petitioner has been terminated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that removal of the petitioner on
the said allegation is by way of punishment, which cannot be imposed without
following the legal procedures and observance of the principles of natural justice. The
petitioner has not been given any notice or opportunity of representation or hearing
before issuing the impugned order cancelling her selection and as such the impugned
order being violative of the principles of natural justice is illegal and is liable to be
quashed by this Court.
The respondents have opposed the writ petition. In their counter affidavit, it has
been stated, inter alia, that there was complain of dispute between the Anganwari
Sevika and the Anganbari Sahaika of the said Centre and as such one Smt. Sarojini
Soren, Lady Supervisor of some other area, was asked to inquire into the said dispute.
After enquiry, it was reported by the said Lady Supervisor that the petitioner was not
giving proper nutrition to the beneficiaries of the village and she was not discharging
her duty properly. She also found that the petitioner as well as the Anganbari Sahaika
(Smt. Bimla Devi) are indisciplined women and due to clash of their self-interest, there
was difficulty in smooth running of the said Centre. On the basis of the said enquiry
report, the appointments of the petitioner as well as that of the Anganabri Sahaika of
the said Centre have been cancelled.
Learned S.C-II appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that before
cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, an enquiry was held by the Lady
Supervisor of some other place and after enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the
dereliction of duty and indiscipline. There was dispute between the Anganbari Sahaika
of the said Centre and the petitioner and for proper functioning of the Centre, it was
deemed fit to cancel the appointments of both i.e. Sevika and Sahaika. The impugned
order has been issued in public interest. The same is not bad or illegal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and
materials on record. On perusal of the impugned order dated 12.8.2010, I find that the
petitioner has been removed from her post on the basis of the allegations against her
of dereliction of duty and indiscipline. It is well established that no punitive order can
be passed against any person without informing him or her reasons / allegations and
without giving him or her proper opportunity to be heard and without affording him or
her reasonable opportunity to defend or represent against his / her cause. Reference
may be made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Indu Bhushan Dwivedi
Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [(2010) 11 SCC 278].
Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner informing the charges and / or
no opportunity of defence was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned
order against the petitioner. The petitioner was discharging her duties since 1999. She
cannot be suddenly and surprisingly terminated without giving her due notice and
opportunity of defending herself.
In view of the above the order of removal of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and
violative of the principles of natural justice. The same cannot sustain. The impugned
order of the petitioner’s removal dated 12.8.2010 as contained in Annexure-9 is
quashed. This writ petition is allowed.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to get all consequential
benefits and she shall be allowed to continue on her post until valid and legal order is
passed determining her services.
S.K (NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J)