Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 838 (JHR)

Teressa Murmu v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-07-17

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. As agreed, the case is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioner was recommended by the Committee and appointed as Anganbari Sevika vide Memo No. 173, dated 17th June, 1999. Her services having been terminated vide Letter No. 191, dated 30th October, 2001, has challenged the order of termination. 4. According to petitioner, the Chief Development Project Officer has issued the impugned order without application of mind and without the recommendation of the Selection Committee, who selected the petitioner. The recommendation of the selection Committee is essential as the authority alleged the selection of petitioner was illegal. 5. It is further submitted that the order of termination is penal in nature as evident from the show cause issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide Letter 2043 dated, 9th August, 2001. 6. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Court in the case of Smt. Sarda Devi v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 237 and unreported decision of this Court dated 16th April, 2002 passed in the case of Anita Devi v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. W.P. (S) No. 4824 of 2001; (now reported in 2002 (2) JCR 287 ). 7. One of the stand of the respondents is that the husband of petitioner is a teacher and has enough landed property, as such she does not come under the beneficiary group. The other ground taken is that the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka on the basis of a written complaint by B.D.O., Ramgarh against the petitioner and her husband, issued show cause notice against the petitioner to take legal action. Certain allegation seems to have been shown in the show cause as contained in Letter No. 2043 dated 9th August, 2001 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 8. In the case of Smt. Sarda Devi (supra), the Court held that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to take any action against Anganbari Sevika. Thereby, there was no occasion for him to issue any show cause to the petitioner. 9. In the case of Anita Devi, 2002 (2) JCR 287 (Jhr) (supra), the Court noticed that the services of said petitioner was terminated on the ground of wrong selection. Thereby, there was no occasion for him to issue any show cause to the petitioner. 9. In the case of Anita Devi, 2002 (2) JCR 287 (Jhr) (supra), the Court noticed that the services of said petitioner was terminated on the ground of wrong selection. The Court held the order passed by Child Development Project Officer is illegal having passed without the recommendation of the Selection Committee. 10. Admittedly, in the present case, no show cause was issued by the competent authority i.e. Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh. He has acted on the basis of a show cause notice given by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, who had no jurisdiction in the matter of termination of service of a Anganbari Sevika. Further, allegations having made against petitioner, without an enquiry, the respondents should not have terminated the services of the petitioner on the mere allegation made by B.D.O., Ramgarh. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned Letter No. 191, dated 30th October, 2001 being illegal, it is set aside. The petitioner stands reinstated as Anganbari Sevika. 12. However, it will be open to the competent authority to pass any order, in accordance with law. 13. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations.