Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1221 (JHR)

Alizabeth Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-05

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
Order The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure-9), passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Pakur, by which she has been terminated from service as Anganwari Sevika, has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed as Anganwari Sevika in the year 1997. After appointment, she was discharging her duty sincerely without any complain. On 3.5.2012 at 8.30 A.M, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur had inspected the said Anganwari Centre and found that the children were absent. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had given reply to the same. Thereafter, the order dated 8.6.2012 cancelling the selection of the petitioner had been passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Pakur on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. The order dated 8.6.2012 had been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5009/2012 on the ground of jurisdiction. The order dated 8.6.2012 was quashed by this Court by order dated 5.10.2012 observing that the Child Development Project Officer may pass fresh order on receiving recommendation from the Deputy Development Commissioner. Thereafter, the Child Development Project Officer has passed impugned order on the ground of dereliction of duty and other irregularities committed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a show cause notice dated 5.5.2012 was issued to the petitioner alleging that on 3.5.2012 at 8.30 A.M, on inspection by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, it was found that the children were absent. The petitioner had given reply to the same explaining the reason of absence, but deviating from the irregularities levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice, the respondents have passed impugned order on different grounds. It has been submitted that the authorities have taken grounds for cancellation of the petitioner’s selection which are not the subject matter of the show cause notice. Even assuming that the petitioner was absent only for a day then also the impugned order is absolutely improper and contrary to Clause 16 of the guidelines of the Government, as contained in Letter No. 585 dated 2.6.2006 (Annexure-10), which suggests that the order of cancellation of selection of an Anganwari Sevika can be passed, if she remains absent continuously for a period of 15 days. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the petitioner had been provided an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. The petitioner had been found involved in dereliction of duty and other irregularities, as such she has been removed from the service. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5009/2012, which was disposed of by the order dated 5.10.2012 and in terms thereof, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, there is no illegality in the same. 5. Heard the parties, perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was discharging her duty as Anganwari Sevika since 1997. On 3.5.2012 at 8.30 A.M, on inspection by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, it was found that the children were absent. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 5.5.2012 had been issued to the petitioner. She had given reply to the same convincing the authorities the reason for her absence (Annexure-5). Thereafter, the respondents had passed order dated 8.6.2012, issued on 12.6.2012, terminating the service of the petitioner on the grounds that she was found absent on 3.5.2012, the said Anganwwari Centre is not being properly run and the meals are also not being distributed among the beneficiaries. The order dated 8.6.2012 was challenged before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5009/2012, which was quashed by order dated 5.10.2012 observing that the Child Development Project Officer may pass fresh order on receiving the recommendation from the Deputy Development Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had made representation before the Child Development Project Officer making reference of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5009/2012 and in terms thereof the impugned order has been passed. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that no specific reason has been assigned by the respondents for cancelling the petitioner’s selection, rather it has been stated that selection of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of dereliction in duty. The petitioner has been removed from service pursuant to a show cause notice dated 5.5.2012, wherein only allegation against her is that on 3.5.2012 at 8.30 A.M, she was found absent. The petitioner had given reply to the same stating the reason of her absence (Annexure-5). The petitioner has been removed from service pursuant to a show cause notice dated 5.5.2012, wherein only allegation against her is that on 3.5.2012 at 8.30 A.M, she was found absent. The petitioner had given reply to the same stating the reason of her absence (Annexure-5). From perusal of the order dated 8.6.2012 and the impugned order, it appears that the reply given by the petitioner had not at all been considered by the authorities concerned. In the show cause notice, it has not been alleged that the petitioner had committed dereliction in duty, rather it has been only alleged that on 3.5.2012 at 8.30 A.M, she was found absent. However, the reason for the same has been assigned by the petitioner. 8. It is cardinal principle of law that if any allegation is levelled against an employee, a show cause notice to that effect has to be issued to the concerned employee. The order cannot be passed on different grounds, otherwise the same will lead to violation of principle of natural justice. From perusal of the show cause notice, it is apparent that the allegation is regarding absence of the children on 3.5.2002 at 8.30 A.M, but there is no reference of the same in the impugned order, rather only one line order has been passed cancelling the selection of the petitioner. 9. It is also cardinal principle of law that the reason must be specific and the order must be specific so that the mind of the authority, who is passing the order, must reflect in the order. From perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that no specific reason has been given showing dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, as such the impugned order cannot be said to be an order passed in accordance with law. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated herein above, the impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure-9) is, hereby, quashed. 11. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated herein above, the impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure-9) is, hereby, quashed. 11. The matter is remitted to the Child Development Project Officer, Pakur to consider the same afresh and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after considering show cause notice dated 5.5.2012 and the reply given by the petitioner dated 7.5.2012, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 12. This writ petition is disposed of in the terms indicated herein above.