Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 462 (JHR)

Akashi Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-04-13

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2 The petitioners in this writ application, being aggrieved of the cancellation of their appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika and Sahayika, have sought, for a direction upon the respondents t9 reinstate them on the post. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though both the petitioners were selected way back in the year 1999 at the meeting of the Aam Sabha and had been working ever since the date of their, appointment in 1999. Yet, despite the fact that for the' past more than 6 years service, were found satisfactory, they were served with the show cause notices and without appreciating the explanations offered by the petitioners, their services were terminated. 4. Counsel for• the petitioners submits that the petitioners' appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika and Angan Bari Sahayikacan be cancelled only on the basis of stipulated rules and not otherwise. Referring to the averments contained in the counter affidavit of the respondents at para 12, learned counsel submits that the appointment could have been cancelled only if the incumbent remains continuously absent for more than 15 days and if the work performance of the incumbent is not found satisfactory by the competent authority. In the instant case, it appears that on one particular date, the Sub-Divisional Officer had visited the Angan Sari Centre and had found the Centre closed and on this basis, and also on the alleged basis of some complaints received against the petitioners, he submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner, recommending cancellation of the petitioners' services and on the basis of such report, services of the petitioners were illegally terminated. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while adverting to the statements contained in the several paragraphs of the counter affidavit, explains that though the petitioners were appointed after their selection by Aam Sabha, but repeated complaints were received against them of their dereliction of duty. Learned counsel refers in this context to Annexure-A series, which are purported letters of complaints received against the petitioners and submits that upon raceiving the complaints, the petitioners were served with show cause notices and at a meeting of the Aam Sabha held in the context of the petitioners' case, it was resolved that services of the petitioners were not found satisfactory and, therefore, their appointment should be cancelled. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this juncture, would submit that the petitioners were never informed about the date of the purported meeting of the Aam Sabha where the cases of the petitioners were discussed and the decision taken and in this view of the matter, the petitioners were apparently not afforded any reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents on record. It appears from the impugned order dated 24.5.2007 issued under the signature of the C.D.P.O., Jamtara, that by the said communication forwarded through the letter, the petitioners were informed that pursuant to the letter dated 23.5.2007 of the Deputy Commissioner, services of the petitioners have been terminated. Admittedly, the letter does not assign any reason as to why the order of termination was passed nor has the purported letter of the Deputy Commissioner being attached to the impugned letter of the C.D.P.O. Even though earlier the petitioners were served with show cause notices and in response to which, they had submitted their show cause replies, but as it appears from the admitted facts, that though a meeting was purportedly held in which the cases of both the petitioners were discussed and a resolution was passed, but as per the submissions of the petitioners, they were not informed about the date of the meeting nor were they invited to participate in the meeting. It also appears from the counter affidavit of the respondents that the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner was on the basis of the report submitted by the C.D.P.O. The petitioners have challenged such report of the C.D.P.O, on the ground that the report is a biased report and submitted at the instance of one Sukhdeo Mandai who, being a relative of the petitioner. is inimical, to' them and the entire matter involves village' politics. 8. is inimical, to' them and the entire matter involves village' politics. 8. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioners' specific assertion that at the meeting of' the Aam Sabha which was, held to discuss the cases of the petitioners regarding their continuance in office, they were not informed and invited to participate, and also considering the fact that no' reason was specifically assigned to the petitioners alongwith the 'impugned order for termination of their services, it has to be held that 'the impugned order of termination is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, the same has been passed without reasonable opportunity afforded to the petitioners of being heard. It would therefore be appropriate that the Deputy Commissioner should reconsider the cases of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order after giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of, by remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district who, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, shall reconsider the case of the petitioners and take an appropriate decision after giving the petitioners reasonable opportunity of being heard. Let a copy 'of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.