Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 646 (JHR)

Asha Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-29

D.N.PATEL

body2009
JUDGMENT: 1. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the averments and allegation made in this interlocutory application and looking to the averments made in the writ petition, I hereby allow this interlocutory application. The nature of allegations advanced in the Interlocutory Application are in furtherance of the allegations and averments made in the writ petition and there is no total departure from the writ petition. It appears that further grievances of the petitioner have been ventilated by the respondents. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 642 of 2009 stands allowed and disposed of. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the party-respondent no. 5. 2. The amendment shall be carried out during course of the day. 3. The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that without giving adequate opportunity of being heard, the services of the present petitioner has been brought to an end by the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro vide order dated 13th of January, 2009 and, thereafter, vide order dated 12th of February, 2009, a further order has been passed for handing over the charge of the post of Aanganbari Sewika. The petitioner was appointed on the said post on 17th of July, 2007 and she was working since then. No grievance has been ventilated by the respondents for the working of the petitioner and only at the instigation of some private candidates, the services of the present petitioner has been terminated without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard. 4. It also contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro has fixed the case for hearing. Notices were served. Thereafter, on 30th of December, 2008, the petitioner appeared through Advocate before the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro, thereafter one more adjournment was given on 6th of January, 2009 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 13th of January, 2009. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time so as to file a written statement which will be in the form of denial of the allegations levelled by the private party. The Deputy Commissioner Bokaro has not allowed the written statement to be filed by the petitioner and final order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro on 13th of January, 2009, terminating the services of the present petitioner vide order at Annexure-5 to the memo of the writ petition. The Deputy Commissioner Bokaro has not allowed the written statement to be filed by the petitioner and final order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro on 13th of January, 2009, terminating the services of the present petitioner vide order at Annexure-5 to the memo of the writ petition. Thereafter, the petition is instituted and subsequently a further order has been passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Chas Sahari, Bokaro on 12th of February, 2009 for handing over the charge, which is also under challenge by way of interlocutory application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents who has submitted that the petitioner was unnecessary asking for time and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro had rightly rejected the application for grant of time and for filing written statement on behalf of the petitioner. Nonetheless, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that, the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro on 30th of December, 2008 and thereafter, on 13th of January, 2009, without giving any further time for filing written statement, the impugned order at Annexure-5 to the memo of the writ petition, has been passed. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:- (i) the petitioner was appointed as Aanganbari Sewika on th of July, 2007. She resumed the charge on the said post and she served for several months on the said post. Never any grievance was ventilated by the respondents for the work of the present petitioner. She was paid salary by the respondents for the post of Aanganbari Sewika (ii) the private party had preferred an application and therefore, the whole case has been started against the present petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner Bokaro issued notice to the present petitioner for hearing. The petitioner appeared on 30th of December, 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro through Advocate and thereafter, on 13th of January, 2009 an application was given for asking time to file written statement. The Deputy Commissioner Bokaro ought to have granted time to file reply, but, for no valid reason, the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro disallowed the filing written statement. The written statement or reply is always necessary to decide a dispute between the parties. In the interest of justice also the written statement ought to have been allowed to be filed by the respondents. The written statement or reply is always necessary to decide a dispute between the parties. In the interest of justice also the written statement ought to have been allowed to be filed by the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner Bokaro has not appreciated this fact, which is an error apparent on the face of the record. Without written statement, the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro has decided the whole matter. This is not an adequate opportunity of being heard accorded by the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro. What was the hurry in the mind of the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro is not reflected in the order. Parties appearing just before fifteen days before him. The time to file written statement ought to be granted. If there is a delay, as per thinking of the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro such application/request for filling reply can be allowed by imposing a nominal cost. 7. In view of these facts, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro dated 13th of January, 2009 at Annexure-5 to the memo of the writ petition and consequently, the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Chas Sahari, Bokaro dated 12th of February, 2009 which is at Annexure-7 to the interlocutory application, is allowed and I, hereby, remand the matter for a fresh decision by the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro and I hereby grant time to file reply/written statement to the petitioner. Now, petitioner will file reply before the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro on or before, within a period of three weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner Bokaro is, hereby, directed to decide afresh, the dispute between the parties within further period of four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and policies as applicable to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extended.