Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 71 (JHR)

Janaki Hembrom v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-13

N.N.TIWARI

body2014
Order : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Letter No.342 dated 8th September, 2012 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara (Annexure2), Whereby the petitioner's one month's honorarium has been withheld on the alleged unauthorized absence of one day i.e. on 8th September, 2012, the order, contained in Memo No.423 dated 24th November, 2012, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara (Annexure4), whereby selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sahayika has been cancelled on the same allegation of one day's absence on 8th September, 2012 and the order, contained at Sl. No.5 in Memo no.8498 dated 26th February, 2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara (Annexure6), so far as it relates to the petitioner, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction on the respondents to reinstate her with full consequential benefits. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sahayika after observing all prescribed formalities on 10th October, 2006 (Annexure1). Her appointment was approved by the competent authority by letter dated 22nd March, 2007 (Annexure1/A). The petitioner since thereafter had been serving as Anganbari Sahayika with full dedication and sincerity. There was never any complain against the petitioner. Suddenly a show cause notice dated 8th September, 2012 was issued to her by the Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara, imposing punishment of withholding one month's honorarium on the allegation of her alleged unauthorized absence on 8th September, 2012. The petitioner filed her reply, stating, inter alia, that on 8th September, 2012 she had come to the Centre for discharging her duty, but due to serious menstrual disorder and heavy bleeding and pain in abdomen she had taken permission of Sevika and left the Centre for medical help. 3. Without considering the petitioner's reply and without any contrary material on record instead of vacating the order, the Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara passed the order dated 24th November, 2012, cancelling the selection of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. By order dated 26th February, 2013, he rejected her appeal without appreciating and considering the grounds urged in the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. By order dated 26th February, 2013, he rejected her appeal without appreciating and considering the grounds urged in the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary, illegal and unjust. The petitioner was once punished by withholding of one month's honorarium for alleged one day's absence on 8th September, 2012 and again on the same allegation she has been removed from the post. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had explained that she had gone on her duty on 8th September, 2012, but due to serious menstrual disorder and pain in abdomen, she had to leave the centre earlier for medical help and treatment. Before leaving the Centre she had taken permission of Sevika of the Centre. There is no contrary material on record to disbelieve or discredit the explanation of the petitioner. But her explanation was arbitrarily rejected and the impugned orders have been passed, which are wholly unjust and violative of principle of natural justice and are liable to be quashed. 7. Learned J.C. to G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that on sudden inspection on 8th September, 2012, the petitioner was found absent from the duty. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, withholding her one month's honorarium. The petitioner filed her explanation, but the same was not found satisfactory by the Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara. The petitioner has been, thus, removed from the post. The petitioner was given proper opportunity of representation. But she could not explain her absence to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. She was, thus, removed from the post. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, who after considering the grounds affirmed the said order and rejected her petition. There is no arbitrariness or violation of principle of natural justice on the part of the respondents and there is no infirmity in the order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. There is no arbitrariness or violation of principle of natural justice on the part of the respondents and there is no infirmity in the order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. On perusal of the impugned orders, I find that earlier the petitioner's one month's honorarium was withheld for the alleged absence on 8th September, 2012 and show cause notice was issued stating that on inspection of the Centre by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner was found absent from her duty. The petitioner had filed reply to the show cause, stating that she had gone to attend her duty on 8th September, 2012, but due to menstrual disorder and heavy bleeding and pain in abdomen she had left the Centre for medical help after informing Sevika of the Centre. The petitioner has also annexed the certificate issued by a doctor. There is no contrary evidence or material on record to disbelieve or discredit the said reply of the petitioner. The Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara without recording any speaking reason for rejecting her explanation cancelled the petitioner's appointment and removed her from the post by the impugned order dated 24th November, 2012 (Annexure4). The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. He also did not consider the grounds and medical certificate on record and held the explanation as designed by way of pretext and rejected her petition. 9. On perusal of the impugned orders, I find that the same are not supported by any speaking reason. The orders are cryptic and laconic. The specific explanation of the petitioner was that she had left the Centre due to heavy bleeding and pain in course of her menstrual period and for getting medical help and treatment. She had also specifically stated that she had informed Sevika of the Centre. But without holding any enquiry and testing the veracity of the explanation filed by the petitioner and without any contrary material on record the Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara held the explanation unsatisfactory and removed her from the post. The petitioner's appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara suffered the same fate. 10. The respondents are public officials of a welfare State and must conform to the requirement of law, equity and natural justice. The petitioner's appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara suffered the same fate. 10. The respondents are public officials of a welfare State and must conform to the requirement of law, equity and natural justice. The respondents on the contrary have acted arbitrarily, inequitably and in violation of principle of natural justice. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, the orders dated 8th September, 2012 (Annexure2), dated 24th November, 2012 (Annexure4) and dated 26th February, 2013 (Annexure6), so far as it relates to the petitioner, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 12. This writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and pay arrears of honorarium in continuity without any break and go on paying the same in accordance with law. Petition allowed.