Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1003 (JHR)

Rashida Bibi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-02

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
Judgment The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.75 of 2012 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and for a further direction to the respondents for reinstating the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was selected on the post of Anganbari Sevika vide Memo No. 318 dated 01.09.2009 and she completed Anganbari Training on 25th July, 2010 with GradeA. By order dated 03.08.2011, the service of the petitioner was terminated and accordingly, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6295 of 2011, which was disposed of by order dated 02.12.2011 in view of the specific rules framed by the State Government which provides a forum for appeal in such case. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in Misc. Case No.75 of 2012, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 and therefore, the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 bringing on record copies of several complaints which were made by the villagers as well as Anganbari Sevika. A copy of order dated 14.03.2011 directing the Child Development Project Officer as well as the letter dated 08.04.2011 of the said Child Development Project Officer has also been brought on record. A specific stand has been taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that since there was a dispute between the Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika, therefore the scheme could not be run for more than seven months and due to which the children in the school suffered. In view of the enquiry conducted by the Child Development Project Officer, the services of both the Anganbari Sahayika as well the petitioner (Sevika) have been terminated by order dated 3rd August, 2011. 4. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. In view of the enquiry conducted by the Child Development Project Officer, the services of both the Anganbari Sahayika as well the petitioner (Sevika) have been terminated by order dated 3rd August, 2011. 4. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that neither the copy of the enquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner nor any showcause notice after the conclusion of the enquiry has been given to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity to her to put her defence, the service of the petitioner has been terminated by the respondents which cannot be sustained in law and therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. She has further submitted that in para 8 of the writ petition, a specific stand has been taken by the petitioner that the petitioner herself has written letters to the respondent no.4 complaining about the attitude of the Anganbari Sahayika and a further stand has been taken in para 10 of the writ petition that without issuing any showcause notice and without affording any opportunity, the service of the petitioner has been terminated by the respondents and in the counteraffidavit filed by the respondent nos.2 to 4, the statements made in the writ petition have not been disputed by the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that due to personal differences between the Anganbari Sahayika and Sevika the children of the school suffered and this could not have been left to the persons responsible i.e. Anganbari Sahayika and Sevika to continue in such a manner and therefore, after holding proper enquiry, the services of the petitioner (Anganbari Sevika) and the Sahayika have been terminated by the respondents. 7. Paragraph Nos. 7 and 10 of the writ petition are extracted below: “7. That it is stated and submitted that in the name of Sevika and Sahayika of Anganbari a Joint Bank Account of said Scheme was imposed in the State Bank of India, Chandankiyari, Bokaro, but due to non cooperation of Sahayika namely Ajufa Bibi, the amount need to provide nutritional food to the beneficiaries could not be done. 10. That it is stated and submitted that in the name of Sevika and Sahayika of Anganbari a Joint Bank Account of said Scheme was imposed in the State Bank of India, Chandankiyari, Bokaro, but due to non cooperation of Sahayika namely Ajufa Bibi, the amount need to provide nutritional food to the beneficiaries could not be done. 10. That it is stated and submitted that without considering the above mentioned facts and without affording her opportunity to put her defence or holding any enquiry providing proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the norms of natural justice as well as the provision laid down under the government notification contained in Memo no.585 providing the essential service code of the Anganbari Sevika in the State of Jharkhand, respondent no.3 has cancelled the selection of the petitioner for the post of Anganbari Sevika vide his order dated 03.08.2011, contained in Memo No.860.” 8. A perusal of the documents on record would clearly indicate that the petitioner made several complaints about the attitude of the Anganbari Sahayika and a stand has been taken by the petitioner that without issuing any showcause notice and without affording any opportunity, the service of the petitioner has been terminated by the respondents. A further stand has been taken by the petitioner that she was unable to withdraw the money from the Bank for running the scheme alone. It further appears that though a direction was given to the Child Development Project Officer for holding an enquiry and it appears that the said officer had reported the matter on 26.05.2011 however, even after the conclusion of the enquiry report, no showcause notice has been given to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 26.11.2012 is also silent on this aspect. 9. I am of the view that without holding the petitioner specifically liable for any misdeed/misconduct, the order dated 03.08.2011 could not have been passed by the respondents; It appears that the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 suffers from non-application of mind as the specific stand taken by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro has not been dealt with by the respondent no.2 and merely because some complaints were made against the Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika, the order of termination dated 3rd August, 2011 has been passed and this order has been affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dated 26.11.2012. 10. 10. In view of the aforesaid, I find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 is quashed. However, since nothing has been brought on record to indicate that some other person has not been appointed in place of the present petitioner, no order for reinstatement of the petitioner can be passed. 11. Needless to say that if the post on which the petitioner has been working has not been filled up, the respondents would consider the petitioner for the reinstatement on the said post. However if some other person has been appointed on the said post, the respondents are directed to give preference to the petitioner if in future any vacancy occurs. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.