Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 168 (JHR)

Anita Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-02-01

D.N.PATEL

body2010
Order Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika w.e.f. 14th June, 2007. Thereafter, she has worked for several months and abruptly, without giving any notice of hearing, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end, vide letter dated 17th December, 2007. 2. It is also vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that abruptly, arbitrarily, whimsically, scrupulously an order has been passed dated 17th December, 2007, wherein, one more letter has been referred bearing letter no. 330 dated 28th November, 2007 and in pursuance of that direction, the Child Development Project, Officer, Latehar, has terminated the services of the petitioner. The said letter was never given to the petitioner, but, the petitioner has to apply for the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereafter only, that secret letter was given to the petitioner. The said letter is at Annexure 3/A to the memo of the writ petition. Looking to the said letter also, it appears that privately some complaints were received against the petitioner. Privately some enquiry were conducted, without informing the petitioner and privately a decision has also been taken unilaterally, without giving any notice to the petitioner and abruptly, arbitrarily the services of the petitioner have been terminated. All these actions are violative of principles of natural justice and therefore, both letters dated 28th November, 2007 as well as letter issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar dated 17th December, 2007, at Annexure-3/A and Annexure-2 respectively, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who has submitted that there was another more , suitable candidates available than the petitioner for Anganbari Sevika and therefore, after appointment of the petitioner vide letter dated 14th June, 2007, some complaints were received and thereafter, enquiry was conducted and vide enquiry report dated 19th July, 2007, it has been pointed out that a lady candidate having higher qualification has not given appointment and therefore, the petitioner's services have been brought to an end by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar vide his letter dated 28th November, 2007 bearing letter no. 330 and consequently, a letter was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar dated 17th December, 2007 and thus, enquiry was also conducted and thereafter, the petitioner's services have been brought to an end and therefore, the petition deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar dated 17th December, 2007 as well as the order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar dated 28th November, 2007, which are at Annexure-2 and Annexure-3/A,. respectively, mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika w.e.f. 14th June, 2007. The said appointment letter is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has worked as Anganbari Sevika. (ii) It appears from the facts of the case that thereafter, the services of the petitioner have 'been brought to an end by the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar vide letter dated 17th December. 2007 (Annexure-2 to the memo of the writ petition). Looking to the said order, no reasons have been assigned and therefore, the said order is absolutely a non-speaking order. (iii) It also appears from the impugned order at Annexure-2 dated 17th December, 2007 that the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar has relied upon a decision taken by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar being letter no. 330, dated 28th November, 2007. No copy of this letter was ever given to the petitioner, nor any notice or any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner by the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar. Thus, the order at Annexure-2 has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. (iv) Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for getting a copy of letter no. 330 dated 28th November, 2007. Thus, the aforesaid secret letter though was relied upon by the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar, the copy whereby was never given to the petitioner. Ultimately, an order was passed under Right to Information Act, 2005 and respondents were compelled to give that letter to the petitioner, which is referred in the impugned order at Annexure-2. (v) Thereafter, looking to the letter no. Ultimately, an order was passed under Right to Information Act, 2005 and respondents were compelled to give that letter to the petitioner, which is referred in the impugned order at Annexure-2. (v) Thereafter, looking to the letter no. 330 dated 28th November, 2007, which is at Annexure-3/A, it appears that some complaints were received from the private party, which were investigated and upon getting report of the so-called private enquiry dated 19th July, 2007, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar has decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. Never any notice was given to the petitioner, nor while holding enquiry also, the, petitioner was invited at least, to give reply of the allegations against her, nor even the copy of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner. Thus, in second letter also, which is at Annexure-3/A to the memo of the petition, the report which is referred in the said order has again been kept as secret. Thus, in first order (Annexure-2) also, one letter was referred, but, never a copy of that letter was given to the petitioner and for getting that copy, the petitioner has to apply under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that copy was given to the petitioner. The said letter is at Annexure-3/A and again in letter at Annexure-3/A, one enquiry report was relied upon and again, the said document, which is relied upon heavily, has never been supplied to the petitioner. State must understand that whenever any decision is taken prejudicial to the interests of anybody, at least, such person must be given notice and opportunity to give reply of allegations must be given to the' concerned person. State should also keep in mind that whenever any document is relied upon, copy of or gist of such document, ought to be given to the candidate whose services have been brought to an end due to allegations and certain documents. 5. As a cumulative effect of the afforested facts. State should also keep in mind that whenever any document is relied upon, copy of or gist of such document, ought to be given to the candidate whose services have been brought to an end due to allegations and certain documents. 5. As a cumulative effect of the afforested facts. reasons and looking to the gross violation of principles of natural justice and as no notice was ever given to the petitioner before taking the decision vide orders dated 17th December, 2007 and 28th December, 2007, which are at Annexures-2 and 3/A, and also while holding enquiry, no notice was given to the petitioner, I hereby; quash and set aside the order dated 17th December, "2007 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Latehar at Annexure-2 as well as the order dated 28th November, 2007 passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar, at Annexure-3/A to the present writ petition. 6. This writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. However, liberty is reserved with the respondents to initiate action against the petitioner, in accordance with law and after at least, following the principles of natural justice.