Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1079 (JHR)

Leena Devi @ Leena Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appointment of the petitioner as Aangan Bari Sahayeeka was terminated by the impugned letter dated 4th January, 2014 bearing Memo no. 12 issued by District Social Welfare Officer, respondent no. 4 (Annexure-6) for Aangan Bari Centre Leeladah Kendra Serial no. 88, Block Poraiyahat, District Godda. The said respondent also ordered for holding Aam Sabha for fresh selection to the post of Sahayeeka for the aforesaid centre. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, process was initiated for holding fresh Aam Sabha also for the same centre by an order issued by Deputy Commissioner, Godda dated 2nd August, 2014 which was sought to be stayed by the petitioner through I.A. No. 4092 of 2014. 4. The petitioner as such was appointed as an Angan Bari Sahayeeka for the same centre on 13th May, 2006 (Annexure-1) by the order issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Poraiyahat. According to her, there is no complaint till April, 2013 against her. Aangan Bari Centre was run in the house of respondent no. 7, who started making trouble and did not allow the petitioner to put signature in the attendance register from 1st week of May, 2013. It is alleged that she was also abused and was prevented from preparation of food for children of Aangan Bari Centre. A request was made by one Sekh Shamad for allowing the Aangan Bari Centre to run in his house as per Annexure-2 dated 17th July, 2013. The petitioner, however, was found to be absent from the same centre on an inspection made on 4th September, 2013 by the Executive Magistrate, Godda on the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. Thereafter she was served with a notice on 31st October, 2013 to produce all relevant papers of her selection as it was also pointed out that she had been found absent since 9th May, 2013, in course of inspection made on 4th September, 2013. The petitioner is said to have replied by her representation at Annexure-5. She also claims to have represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda through Annexure-3 dated 30th September, 2013 in respect of the difficulties created by respondent no. 7. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Godda, Annexure-6. The petitioner is said to have replied by her representation at Annexure-5. She also claims to have represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda through Annexure-3 dated 30th September, 2013 in respect of the difficulties created by respondent no. 7. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Godda, Annexure-6. It is assailed by the petitioner on the grounds that no copy of the inquiry report was served upon her. It is further assailed on the grounds that District Social Welfare Officer, Godda is not empowered to terminate the services of Angan Bari Sahayeeka or Sevika neither such an order can be issued by the Deputy Commissioner as it is the Selection Body which is empowered to do so. 5. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Tara Devi vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2013 (3) JLJR 497 , where the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2001 (1) JLJR 237 has also been referred to. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order suffers from violation of principle of natural justice as no copy of inquiry report was served upon her and the order is wholly without jurisdiction as the respondent no. 4, District Social Welfare Officer, Godda is not empowered to issue such an order of termination. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has contested the stand of the petitioner. In their affidavit, the same notice of 31st October, 2013 served upon the petitioner have been enclosed in support of the contention that there has been proper observance of principle of natural justice. The petitioner had also responded to the said notice. The reference has also been made to the circular of Social Welfare, Woman & Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 2nd June, 2006 (Annexure-C) and Clause 16, thereof as per which in the case of continued absence for 15 days, upon show cause being furnished, the services of Sevika/Sahayeeka can be terminated by Child Development Project Officer with prior approval of the Deputy Development officer. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from an error of jurisdiction either as it is the Deputy Commissioner, who has issued the direction to terminate the petitioner's services. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given anxious consideration to the issues raised herein. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from an error of jurisdiction either as it is the Deputy Commissioner, who has issued the direction to terminate the petitioner's services. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given anxious consideration to the issues raised herein. In the first place, it appears that though a show cause was issued on 31st October, 2013 upon the petitioner, but no copy of the inquiry report was served upon her which interalia contained the findings of the absence for a certain length of period. The petitioner appears to have furnished her reply but in the absence of the inquiry report she was certainly prejudiced from giving proper reply to the allegations made in the show cause. It further appears that under the circular of 2nd June, 2006 also the order of termination can be issued by the C.D.P.O. upon approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is the appellate authority. However, from the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Tara Devi (supra), it is evident that the Deputy Development Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to remove Angan Bari Sevika. Such power is vested in Selection Committee, which alone can make such recommendation for removal to the Child Development Project Officer. The opinion of the learned Single Judge based upon the judgments rendered earlier in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & Others are contained at para 6 of the said judgment. It therefore appears that not only the petitioner has been denied a substantive right of appeal as the appellate authority himself has issued direction to terminate the petitioner's service, but at the same time the decision is rendered vitiated as the enquiry report which formed the basis for issuance of the show cause upon her with an allegation of absence was not served upon her to enable her to furnish proper reply to the same. 8. In that view of the matter, it appears that the impugned order suffers from errors of jurisdiction as also failure to comply the principles of natural justice in its letter and spirit. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that fresh exercise for selection of Aangan Bari Sahayeeka for the same centre was kept in abeyance by an interim order dated 14th August, 2014 which has continued till date. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that fresh exercise for selection of Aangan Bari Sahayeeka for the same centre was kept in abeyance by an interim order dated 14th August, 2014 which has continued till date. However, while allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order, the respondents are granted liberty to take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner and I.A. No. 4092 of 2014 stands disposed of.