Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1469 (GAU)

Monila Begum v. State of Assam

2017-11-23

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called upon. Heard Mr. M. Khataniar, learned standing counsel for BTC and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner, who has passed the HSLC examination in the year 2005, had participated in a selection process for the post of Anganwadi Worker at No. 124 Joraguri Part-III, Anganwadi Centre. Pursuant to such participation in the selection process, the petitioner was selected and appointed as an Anganwadi Worker as per the order dated 29.9.2007 of the Project Officer, Manikpur CDPO dated 29.9.2007. The petitioner accordingly joined in her service and had worked as an Anganwadi Worker. 3. One Jahanara Khatun had preferred a writ petition before this court assailing the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not a resident of the jurisdictional area of the Anganwadi Centre. The said writ petition was disposed of by requiring the respondent-authorities to conduct an enquiry as to whether the petitioner is a resident of the jurisdictional area of the Anganwadi centre. 4. Consequent to such direction of this court, an enquiry was held by forming a committee under the Chairmanship of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bijni. The said committee had taken the statement of Jahanara Khatun, who had preferred the writ petition as well as that of the petitioner and thereafter some reports were submitted. Based upon the said report of the enquiry, the order dated 3.8.2011 was issued under the signature of the CDPO, Manikpur, by which the petitioner was released from service. 5. A perusal of the order of 3.08.2011 of the CDPO, Manikpur reveals that there is a WT Message No. SWD-192/2011/6 dated 4.7.2011 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, by which it was provided that the petitioner be released from her engagement on the basis of the enquiry report that was submitted. Accordingly, the CDPO in compliance of the said direction of the Commissioner and Secretary contained in the WT Message dated 4.7.2011, had released the petitioner from service. The said order dated 3.8.2011 and also the direction of the Commissioner and Secretary in the WT Message dated 4.7.2011 had been assailed in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the CDPO in compliance of the said direction of the Commissioner and Secretary contained in the WT Message dated 4.7.2011, had released the petitioner from service. The said order dated 3.8.2011 and also the direction of the Commissioner and Secretary in the WT Message dated 4.7.2011 had been assailed in this writ petition. 6. A prima facie reading of the order dated 3.8.2011 of the CDPO goes to show that after the direction of this court, some kind of enquiry was conducted by the committee constituted for the purpose, where the statement of the petitioner was also recorded. Apart from that there is no indication in the order that the petitioner was made known about the contents of the enquiry report or that the petitioner was issued with any show cause notice giving her an opportunity to present her case against the enquiry report in question. 7. It is noticed that the direction of this court was to conduct an enquiry, but the said direction cannot be construed that it is also a direction to release the petitioner from service on the basis of such enquiry report without following any further requirement of law. 8. If an enquiry was conducted and a report thereof was submitted and the respondent-authorities intend to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of such enquiry report, the procedure of law as well as the principles of natural justice requires that the petitioner be at least given a notice along with the enquiry report, requiring her to show cause as to why the said enquiry report should not be acted upon and also why appropriate action should not be taken against her. 9. In the absence of such procedure being followed, this court is of the view that the order of release of the petitioner dated 3.8.2011 had not only been passed without following the required procedure of law, but also without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 10. In view of such conclusion, the order of release dated 3.8.2011 as well as the direction of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Social Welfare Department in the WT Message dated 4.7.2011 are set aside. 11. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by issuing an appropriate show cause as indicated above and by following the procedure of law and pass appropriate orders thereon. 11. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by issuing an appropriate show cause as indicated above and by following the procedure of law and pass appropriate orders thereon. In the event, the authorities intend to proceed against the petitioner, the Commissioner and Secretary shall cause a show cause notice to be served on the petitioner along with the enquiry report giving her an opportunity to present her case and thereafter pass a reasoned speaking order thereon. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.