Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 912 (JHR)

Sarswati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2016-06-13

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
ORDER : Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 29.05.2014 pertaining to cancellation of her service as Anganwari Sevika, has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of her grievances. 2. The brief facts of the case as has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sevika on 03.02.1999. She started her duty, but on a sudden inspection carried out by the District Social Welfare Officer, Palamu a show cause notice dated 30.12.2013 asking the petitioner to give her reply. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that in reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner has immediately filed her reply on 07.02.2014. 4. It has been submitted that since the impugned order has been passed on 29.05.2014 which cannot be said to be an order rather which is in the form of communication issued under the signature of the Child Development Project Officer, Palamu whereby the Child Development Project Officer, Palamu has removed the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sevika and directed her to hand over the entire charge to one Smt. Renu Devi i.e. the Anganbari Sevika of another Anganbari Centre, Karkatta, Bisrampur, Palamu. 5. It has further been submitted that under the Government guideline dated 02.06.2006 the Child Development Project Officer is the competent authority to remove the Sevika of Anganbari with the approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. The order since been passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, and the order which is under challenge dated 29.05.2014 a communication referring therein the decision taken by the District Social Welfare Officer, Palamu. 6. Thus, it has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that decision has been taken by the authorities concerned without providing any opportunity of being heard and that too by the authority who is not competent to pass the order. In support of his contentions, Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . 7. In support of his contentions, Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that petitioner has committed gross negligence in running the Anganbari Centre and she has avoided to produce the records of Anganbari Centre. Hence she has got no right to remain on the post. 8. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned JC to G.P.III, appearing for the respondents-State. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate foundational facts and law to make out a case for interference due to the reasons stated hereinbelow :- (i) In view of Government circular dated 02.06.2006, which has been produced in course of argument, wherein there is specific provision at clause no. 16 that the Child Development Project Officer is the competent authority to cancel the services of Sevika with the approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. (ii) The same issue was the subject matter of a case before this Court in the case of Smt Tara Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2013 (3) JLJR 497 . In this case also it was held that Deputy Development Commissioner has no jurisdiction to remove Anganbari Sevika. 10. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal dated 29.05.2014 passed by District Social Welfare Officer, Palamu (respondent no.5) is not legally sustainable and is accordingly quashed. The Child Development Project Officer (respondent no. 5) is directed to pass appropriate order if petitioner approaches before the authority concerned within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and pass an appropriate order within reasonable period, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of this case. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands, disposed of.