Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 909 (GAU)

Jehera Begam v. State of Assam

2009-12-17

HRISHIKESH ROY, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Choudury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (writ petitioner). Also heard Ms. B. Goyal, learned senior Govt. Advocate representing the State Authorities. 2. This case pertains to appointment of Anganwadi Worker in the Candmari Majorpara Anganwadi Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'the Majorpara Centre'), where the appellant was selected to be appointed as the Aganwadi Worker. When questions were raised about whether she is candidate residing within the locality covered by the Majorpara Centre, her appointment was somewhat delayed. She was eventually allowed to join as an Anganwadi Worker in the Majorpara Centre. 3. But after serving for sometime, an order dated 4.3.2008 was passed by the Director of Social Welfare directing the jurisdictional Child Development Project Officer to terminate the service of the appellant and to appoint one Smti Ruksana Parbin (Respondent No. 5) in the said Centre. The Director ordered the termination of her service on the basis of an enquiry report submitted. by the Divisional Programme Officer, ICDS Cell, Kamrup. Since the said inquiry was contended to be hold without participation of the appellant, she filed a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (C) No. 1000/08. The said writ petition was disposed of on 30.10.2008 whereby the Court directed a fresh inquiry into the residential status of the writ petitioner with due opportunities to her and in the meantime, permitted her continuance in service. 4. Consequent to the direction of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 1000/08, a de novo inquiry was scheduled and appellant was given notice to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 24.12.2008 and to produce the materials in support of her contentions. The appellant accordingly appeared before the Inquiry Officer and produced: (i) A certificate issued by the Secretary of the Kalapani Candmari Gaon Panchayat, (ii) Voters List of 2007 and (iii) A survey report. 5. The Inquiry Officer on consideration of the materials produced by the appellant gave a fresh inquiry report to the Director, on the basis of which the order dated 5.1.2009 has been passed terminating the service of the petitioner. 6. 5. The Inquiry Officer on consideration of the materials produced by the appellant gave a fresh inquiry report to the Director, on the basis of which the order dated 5.1.2009 has been passed terminating the service of the petitioner. 6. The second Writ Petition (C) No. 86/09 was filed by the appellant to challenge her termination by contending that, the documents relied upon by the appellant to reach an adverse conclusion that she is not residing within the jurisdictional area of the Majorpara Centre, were not forwarded by the Inquiry Officer to the Director of Social Welfare so as to enable the said Authority to comprehensively consider the matter. It was also pleaded that the earlier certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary and the survey report, were not considered by the Director when her service termination was ordered on 5.1.2009. 7. During the proceeding before the learned Single Judge, a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge also examined the inquiry report and held that all the documents relied upon by the appellant in support of her candidature were taken into account by the Inquiry Officer in finalizing his report. The Court recorded that the Inquiry Officer considered the voter list relied upon by the appellant and concluded that the said voter list did not establish the appellant to be a resident of the locality serviced by the Majorpara Centre. The voter list indicated that the appellant and her family members were included as voters in the Kalapani Chandmari Revenue village. It was also noted that there were 2 Anganwadi Centers for the population of the Kalapai Chandmari Revenue village. 7.1. In so far as the certificate issued by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary is concerned, the learned Single Judge noted that the Inquiry Officer had referred to the letter written subsequently on 30.9.2008 by the Secretary of the Kalapani Gaon Panchayat, who stated that earlier he had given a wrong certificate on 25.9.2008 to the appellant Smti Jahera Begum regarding the place of her residence and this was regretted to be a mistake by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary 7.2. In so far as the third certificate i.e. the survey report relied upon by the appellant is concerned, the learned Single judge found that the survey report too was considered by the Inquiry Officer along with the records and Registers of Kalapani (Kachubaripara) Anganwadi Centre. 7.3. Apart from the above documents, the Inquiry Officer was also found by the learned Single Judge to have relied upon a report dated 24.12.2008 submitted by the Circle Supervisor and Statistical Assistant of Krishnai-Balijan ICDS Project that the family of the appellant is not covered by the Chandmari (Majorpara) Anganwadi Centre. 8. All the above documents were considered and were reflected in the impugned termination order dated 5.1.2009 issued by the Director, Social Welfare. Contrary to the claim made, all the documents relied upon by the appellant were found to be considered and taken into account by the Inquiry Officer and accordingly it was held that interference with the termination order is not warranted and by the impugned order dated 19.2.2009, the writ petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 9. Before us also, the learned Counsel representing the appellant (Writ petitioner) argues that documents relied upon by her in support of the validity of her candidature for appointment as a worker in the Major-para Centre, were not considered by the Inquiry Officer or the Director of Social Welfare. We called for the Inquiry Report, which has been made the basis for the termination order passed against the appellant. We have carefully perused the inquiry report dated 2.1.2009 of the Programme Officer, ICDS Cell, Kamrup which shows that all the documents relied upon by the appellant, have been taken into account, not only by the Inquiry Officer but also by the Director of Social Welfare, before issuing the impugned termination order dated 5.1.2009. Therefore, this Court is satisfied upon fresh perusal of the records the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that the termination order passed against the writ petitioner does not warrant any interference as all the relevant documents relied upon by the appellant were considered. 10. In our view also the appellant was not qualified to be appointed as an Anganwadi worker of the Majarpara Centre and the authorities were right in terminating her service. 11. Accordingly we fine no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.