Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 644 (JHR)

Latika Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-11

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
ORDER N.N. Tiwari. J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 713 dated 5.12.2010 (Annexure-7) whereby the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar has removed the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sahaika on the allegation that she had produced a forged certificate. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the Letter No. 421 dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure-8) whereby the said order has been communicated to the petitioner by the Child Development Project Officer, Sarath, Deoghar. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sahaika at Centre- Kura, Block-Sarath, District-Deoghar on 15.5.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training on 31.5.2004 and after completion of successful training, certificate was granted to the petitioner. Since thereafter the petitioner had been working continuously. Suddenly, by the impugned order (Annexure-7), the Deputy Development Commissioner has removed the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sahaika with immediate effect on the ground that on verification, certificate submitted by her was found forged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's removal on the said charge is stigmatic and punitive. Before issuing the impugned orders, the petitioner was not informed about the said charge and she was not given any opportunity of representation/hearing. The impugned orders are, thus, violative of principle of natural justice and the same are wholly arbitrary and illegal. 4. The respondents have contested the writ petition stating, inter alia, that at the time of her appointment, the petitioner had submitted certificates. Her educational certificate of 8th pass was verified, but her name was not found in the school register. The said certificate is, therefore, a forged certificate. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, admitted that before removal of the petitioner on the said charge, no notice was given to her informing the same and no opportunity of representation or hearing was afforded to her for meeting the said charge. 5. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner has been removed on 'die basis of certain charge and that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of meeting the said charge, the impugned orders have not complied with the mandatory requirement of the principle of natural justice and as such the same cannot sustain in law. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 5.12.2010 and 16.12.2010 as contained in Annexures 7 & 8 respectively are quashed. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 5.12.2010 and 16.12.2010 as contained in Annexures 7 & 8 respectively are quashed. However, if the respondents have still any legal ground to proceed against the petitioner, this order does not prevent the respondents from taking steps in accordance with the procedures established by law.. Petition allowed.