IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2412 of 2008
Rita Pratiwanti Hembrom @ Rita Pritiwanti Hembrom @ Robeda Bibi
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj
3. The District Development Commissioner, Sahibganj
4. The Welfare Officer, Circle-Taljhai, District- Sahibganj
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Taljhari, District-Sahibganj
6. The District Programme Officer, Sahibganj
7. The Block Development Officer, Taljhari, Sahibganj ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : M/s Ajit Kumar, Din Dayal Saha, Advocates
For the Respondents : J.C. to S.C.-II
———
th
03/Dated: 24 February, 2010
1. I have heard Mr. Ajit Kumar and Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned
counsels for the petitioner, who have vehemently submitted that the
petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika vide appointment letter
dated 26th June, 2007. The said appointment letter is at Annexure-2 to the
memo of petition. It is also submitted by learned counsels for the
petitioner that, thereafter, the petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika
and she was also paid salary by the concerned respondent authorities and,
thereafter, the services of the petitioner have been terminated by
respondent no. 5 vide order dated 22nd April, 2008. The said termination
order is at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition, which is under challenge.
No notice, no hearing has been given by the respondents before the
termination of the services of the petitioner. The so-called inquiry, which
is alleged to have taken place is also an ex-parte inquiry and the inquiry
officer has not given any hearing and any notice to the petitioner. Thus,
inquiry has also been conducted, ex-parte. Moreover, no report of the
inquiry has been supplied to the petitioner, even though, the same has
been heavily relied in the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order
dated 22nd April, 2008 has been passed in gross violation of principles of
natural justice and, hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has
submitted that there were some complaints against the present petitioner
and upon receiving complaints, inquiry was conducted and on the basis of
inquiry, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end by
respondent no. 5 vide order dated 22nd April, 2008 at Annexure-3 to the
memo of petition and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
3. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order
passed by respondent no. 5 dated 22nd April, 2008 for the following facts
and reasons:-
(i) The petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect
from 26th June, 2007. The said appointment letter is at Annexure-2
to the memo of petition. Looking to Annexure-1 also, it appears
that Aam Sabha meeting was held in the centre Bishrampur Momin
Tola, District-Sahibganj on 23rd February, 2007 and 12th June, 2007,
in which, the petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sevika.
(ii) It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner was worked for several
months as Anganbari Sevika and the respondents were also paying
salary to the petitioner for those months.
(iii) Thereafter, it appears that respondent no. 5 has passed the
order dated 22nd April, 2008 at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition,
whereby, the services of the petitioner have been terminated,
without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of
being heard to the petitioner. Thus, the order of termination has
been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
(iv) Looking closely to the impugned order passed by respondent
no. 5, it appears that some ex-parte inquiry has been conducted on
the basis of some complaints, but, never the copy of the complaints
nor the copy of the inquiry report has been given to the petitioner.
In the impugned order, much and heavy reliance has been placed
upon the inquiry report and despite this fact though respondent
no. 5 must have read the report in detail, no copy has been given to
the petitioner and, therefore also, there is gross violation of
principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order.
(v) It also appears that ex-parte inquiry has been conducted by
some officer. Neither the nature of complaints is reflected in the
impugned order nor the gist of inquiry officer has been given in the
impugned order. Only one line has been mentioned that upon
receipt of some complaints, inquiry was conducted and, therefore,
the services of the petitioner have been terminated, but, nothing is
mentioned that what is the inquiry report.
4. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby
quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 5 dated 22nd April,
2008 at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition, reserving liberty with the
respondents to initiate action, in accordance with law and at least after
following the principles of natural justice.
5. The petition is, hereby, allowed and disposed of, in view of the
aforesaid observations.
(D.N. Patel, J)
Ajay/