Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1246 (JHR)

Banita Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-19

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 09.08.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as A.N.M. Nurse w.e.f. 14.04.2007. On inspection, the petitioner was found absent on 19.7.2012 and 27.07.2012. A show-cause notice dated 19.07.2012 was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted her reply on 20.07.2012 taking a plea that for the purpose of vaccination she had gone to Jhikarhatti Shivtalla and information in this regard was already given to the Primary Health Centre, Pakur. By order dated 09.08.2012, the petitioner has been terminated from service. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring her to explain her absence on 19.07.2012 and 27.07.2012 however, the order of termination contains several other allegations, which were never put to the petitioner and therefore, the order of termination dated 09.08.2012 is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2013 (3) JCR 505 (Jhr). 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that, since the petitioner absented herself two occasions which was not condoned by the competent authority and the petitioner was found misconducting herself, the order of termination dated 09.08.2012 has been passed. 6. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 19.07.2012 requiring her to submit her reply. The petitioner submitted her reply to the show-cause notice dated 19.07.2012 taking a plea that she had left for vaccination. I further find that the notice dated 27.07.2012 was also issued for absence for one day. However, the order of termination dated 09.08.2012 contained several other allegations such as, dereliction of duty, negligence, dis-obedience of directions etc. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain her conduct and other allegations which have been taken against the petitioner in the impugned order dated 09.08.2012. I further find that there is no reason given by the authority in the termination order dated 09.08.2012 why the plea taken by the petitioner has not been accepted by the authority. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain her conduct and other allegations which have been taken against the petitioner in the impugned order dated 09.08.2012. I further find that there is no reason given by the authority in the termination order dated 09.08.2012 why the plea taken by the petitioner has not been accepted by the authority. I further find that for absence of one day, the service of an employee cannot be terminated. Moreover, in the facts of the present case where no reason has been disclosed by the authority why the explanation submitted by the employee has been found unsatisfactory, the impugned order dated 09.08.2012 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits. Petition allowed.