Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 868 (JHR)

Bharti Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-27

D.N.PATEL

body2012
Order Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner no.1 was appointed as Anganbari Sevika on 23rd March, 1990 and petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Anganbari Sahaika on 26th October, 1995 and their services have been terminated after a period of approximately one and half decade, on 3rd November, 2011, vide order at Annexure-4 without giving any notice and without giving an opportunity of being heard. 2. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that neither any reason has been assigned in the impugned order of termination of the services of the present petitioners nor any show-cause notice has been given to the petitioners so that prior to their termination the petitioners can explain the correct facts before the respondents. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that on perusal of order dated 25th October, 2011 (Annexur-B to the counter affidavit), it appears that some preliminary enquiry was conducted and in pursuance of that enquiry, direction was given to the Child Development Project Officer to show-cause the petitioners. But no such show-cause was given to the petitioners before their services have been brought to an end, that too without giving any opportunity of being heard. 3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the allegation levelled against the present petitioners in the counter affidavit is false and incorrect and therefore, order at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that enquiry was conducted against the petitioners and they were also present before the enquiry officers and they were found guilty. There are several allegations levelled by the villagers of the concerned village where the Anganbari Center in question is situated. Apart from the other allegations, the petitioners have not maintained necessary registers also. Moreover, petitioners have not supplied food to the children, who are enrolled in the said Anganbari Center. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and as per Annexures-A and B to the counter affidavit, the adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners and thereafter only, termination order dated 3rd November, 2011 was passed, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition. 5. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and as per Annexures-A and B to the counter affidavit, the adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners and thereafter only, termination order dated 3rd November, 2011 was passed, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition. 5. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I, hereby, quash and set aside the order dated 3rd November, 2011 (Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition) passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Jharia, District-Dhanbad for the following facts and reasons:- (I) Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika in the Anganbari Center at Village-Saharpura on 23rd March, 1990. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Anganbari Sahaika in the said Anganbari Centre on 26th October, 1995. Thereafter, they worked for more than one and half decade honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. (II) On 3rd November, 2011, an order of termination was passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Jharia, District-Dhanbad, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition, wherein it has been stated that several irregularities have been found in the services of the petitioner, hence services of the petitioners• was terminated. This order was passed without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioners. No enquiry was conducted against the petitioners. Moreover, no enquiry report was given to the petitioners. Thus, order dated 3rd November, 2011 was passed is violation of the principles of natural justice. (III) Counsel for the respondents has relied upon Annexure-A to the memo of the counter affidavit, especially paragraph-11 thereof. Looking to the annexures to the counter affidavit, it appears that some preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was found that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioners, but looking to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it appears that show-cause notice was directed to be given to the petitioners after holding the preliminary enquiry but n(3ither such show-cause notice was ever given to the petitioners nor any regular depart~ mental enquiry was conducted and only a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the petitioners. It ought to be remembered by the respondents that whenever any allegation is levelled against any employee of the State, especially against those who are working for more than one decade, then a detailed show-cause notice should be given alongwith a copy of the allegation petition, if at all received from anybody. Preliminary' enquiry is conducted by the State with a view to find out whether there is any misconduct not? The purpose of holding preliminary enquiry is altogether different. It is possible that random allegations are being levelled by some dissatisfied soul, with some ulterior motives. These allegations mayor may not be found true and correct. Therefore, preliminary enquiry is to be conducted so that veracity of the allegations can be found out, prima facie, by the high ranking officers, who are entrusted with the duty to take disciplinary action against the erring officers/ employees. The purpose of holding preliminary enquiry is to find out verasity of the allegations before issuing showcause notice to the erring officers. Preliminary enquiry is not the final enquiry. After holding preliminary enquiry regarding some allegations, if the allegations are found to be true, a show-cause notice must be given and after opportunity of being heard is given to the erring officers, an enquiry must be conducted and a copy of the report thereto must be given to the erring employees and thereafter only disciplinary action can be taken. It appears that Respondent State has neither given any showcause notice nor they have held any departmental enquiry. In the facts of the present case, even looking to the preliminary enquiry, which is at Annexure-A to the memo of the counter affidavit, it appears that there are certain allegations against these two petitioners by the villagers of the area and without giving adequate opportunity to the se two petitioners to explain these allegations, their services have been terminated. This Court has come across several such matters in which the Child Development Project Officers are passing orders in gross violation of principles of natural justice and this case is not an exception. The following has been held by this Court in Ranki Kujur & Anr. VS. State of Jharkhand & Ors. This Court has come across several such matters in which the Child Development Project Officers are passing orders in gross violation of principles of natural justice and this case is not an exception. The following has been held by this Court in Ranki Kujur & Anr. VS. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012(2) J.LJ.R. 196 , in paragraph 4(111): "In absence of any enquiry and in absence of any document supplied to the petitioner, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice as copies of the documents, upon which the respondents are relying upon, ought to have been supplied to the petitioners. Further, the reason given in the reply, at Annexure-3 to the memo of the petition, have also not been considered by the respondents." Moreover, on perusal of Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it appears that District Social Welfare Officer, Dhanbad had already directed the Child Development Project Officer to give a show-cause notice to the petitioners, but it appears that the Child Development Project Officer, without giving a show-cause notice, terminated the services of the petitioners. The Child Development Project Officer, Jharia has not even followed the direction contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, given by her superior officer. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I, therefore, quash and set aside the order dated 3rd November, 2011, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Jharia. The respondents are directed to let the petitioners work as Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahayika respectively and also to make payment of the salary for the' period of their termination till today. 7. This petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,090/-. This cost will be initially paid by the State and thereafter, will be deducted from the salary of the erring officer after holding necessary enquiry. 8. The amount of cost will be equally divided between the petitioners. 9. Both the Interlocutory Application and the writ petition are disposed of in view of the aforesaid directions.