Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 140 (JHR)

Surathi Bala Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-28

D.N.PATEL

body2010
Order The present petition has been preferred mainly against an order, passed by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, dated 4th February, 2008, which is at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition, whereby, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 7th June, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner has also undergone necessary training to the satisfaction of the respondents ~d thereafter, she has worked as Anganbari Sevika and abruptly, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, by thoroughly a non-speaking order, the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, has terminated the services of the petitioner vide letter dated 4th February. 2008, which is at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not giving any reason, whatsoever, for termination of the services of the present petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the officer, who has passed the impugned order, has not applied his mind at all, and upon direction of some other officer, the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, has terminated the services of the petitioner. Thus, nobody knows what is the direction given by the high ranking officer to the District Programme Officer, Ranchi. Likewise, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that what must have weighed with the high ranking officer for giving a direction for termination of the services of the petitioner is also not known to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has been kept totally in dark and some high ranking officer has taken a decision for terminating the services of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the District Programme Officer has heard the petitioner. This contention has been opposed by tooth and nail by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that a high ranking officer has given the direction to the District Programme Officer, Ranchi. Thus, hearing has taken place before one officer and another officer has given a direction for termination. This is a gross violation of the basic principles of administrative law. Thus, hearing has taken place before one officer and another officer has given a direction for termination. This is a gross violation of the basic principles of administrative law. Under an expected principle of administrative law, a hearing, if given by one officer and if the order is passed by another officer, is an illegality and, therefore also, the impugned order at Annexure-8 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and an opportunity of being heard was also given to the petitioner and, thereafter only, termination order has been passed by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, dated 4th February, 2008 at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition and, therefore, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, an enquiry was also conducted by the respondents and on the basis of said enquiry report, it has been found out that there was no Aam Sabha at all and, therefore, there was no proper and valid selection of the present petitioner as Anganbari Sevika and, therefore, her services have been brought to an end by the impugned order, passed by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order, passed by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, dated 4th February, 2008, which is at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) It appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 23rd May, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner has also undergone necessary training, imparted by the respondent-State and the petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, for which she was also getting necessary remunerations. Thereafter, the petitioner has also undergone necessary training, imparted by the respondent-State and the petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, for which she was also getting necessary remunerations. (ii) It appears from the facts of the case that thereafter some enquiry was conducted by some officer and on the basis of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and thereafter, an opportunity of filing reply to the same was also given to the petitioner and thereafter, her services have been brought to an end by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, by order dated 4th February, 2008, which is at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition. Now, looking closely to Annexure-8 to the memo of petition, which is the impugned order, it appears that no reason has been assigned in the said order that what is the illegality, for which the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end. The impugned order is thoroughly a non-speaking order; as no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned in the impugned order. (iii) Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that now a counter affidavit has been filed to the effect that some enquiry was also conducted by the officer of the respondent-State and it was found out that there was no Aam Sabha, at all, and, therefore, the services of the present petitioner have been brought to an end. These reasons have been assigned, as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the counter affidavit. This contention is also not much helpful to the respondents, mainly for the reasons that a non-speaking order remains a non-speaking order, even though the counter affidavit supplies the reasons. No reasons can be supplied in the counter affidavit to a non-speaking order, otherwise, all the non-speaking orders will be converted into speaking orders, by passage of time. Subsequently supplied wisdom is of no help at all. Looking to the impugned order, it appears to this Court that the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, has not given any reason, whatsoever, and, thus, the non-speaking order at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition remains as it is. Affidavit cannot supply the reasons subsequently. . Subsequently supplied wisdom is of no help at all. Looking to the impugned order, it appears to this Court that the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, has not given any reason, whatsoever, and, thus, the non-speaking order at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition remains as it is. Affidavit cannot supply the reasons subsequently. . (iv) Further looking closely to the impugned order, it also appears that the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, has not applied his mind for termination of the services of the petitioner. He has acted or reacted on the basis of some directions, given by the high ranking officer. Nobody knows what is the direction and nobody knows whether that high ranking officer has also assigned reasons or not. The petitioner is not given a copy of the order, passed by the high ranking officer. Thus, from reading the impugned order, it appears that the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, has terminated the services of the present petitioner, on the basis of the direction, given by the high ranking officer and that too, without giving any reasons, whatsoever. (v) It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that hearing was given by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, before terminating the services of the present petitioner. This contention is also not helpful to the respondents, for the reasons that assuming, without admitting, that the so-called hearing was given to the petitioner, it was given by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, whereas the direction of termination of the services of the petitioner has been given by the high ranking officer. Thus, hearing has taken place before one officer and the order of termination has been passed by another officer. This is not permissible in the eyes of law and, thus, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. As a cumulative effect' of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order, passed by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, dated 4th February, 2008, which is at Annexure-8 to the memo of petition. The respondents are at liberty to take action, in accordance with law, if they are so choosing. 7. This writ •petition is, thus, allowed and disposed of.