Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1159 (JHR)

Manisha Hembrom v. State of Jharkhand

2019-06-18

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mr V.N.Shau A.C to G.P.I learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 13.9.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad( respondent no.3) whereby and where under the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has been pleased to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner which had been filed by the petitioner against the order of termination dated 29.1.2010 issued by the D.D.P.O Nirssa (respondent no.5) and further prayed that all consequential benefits may be given. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner was initially appointed as Aanganbari Sewika for the Aangabari Centre Bariogarha “Adivasi Tola” of Nirsa Block by the decision of the Aam Sabha(General Assembly) and Chayan Samiti(Selection Committee)on 16.6.2004.It is further stated that the petitioner has also gone necessary training to the satisfaction of the respondents and she has worked Aanganbari Sewika for which she had been getting necessary benefits. It is further stated that she is a well trained person for very well managing driving and care of infant. It is further stated that the petitioner was working sincerely, honestly, diligently and to satisfaction of respondents as an Aanganbari Sewika since 2004 after her appointment. It is further stated that against the termination order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and -pursuant to that, the Deputy Commissioner has passed a reasoned order affirming the order of termination. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner along with her counsel and Deputy Commissioner has provided full opportunity to the petitioner for her grievance. Child Development Programme Officer Nirsa Dhanbad also appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. It is stated that for being absent from work, the petitioner has been given show cause by letter dated 19.9.2008 and 12.6.2009. After filing show cause it was found that she was absent from work from 15.8.2008. It was found that the petitioner was absent for two years unauthorizedly. Keeping all things and after hearing the case records, the petitioner has been terminated from service 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that the Deputy Commissioner has provided full opportunity to the petitioner and after considering all the aspects, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the reasoned order affirming the order of the termination. Keeping all things and after hearing the case records, the petitioner has been terminated from service 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that the Deputy Commissioner has provided full opportunity to the petitioner and after considering all the aspects, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the reasoned order affirming the order of the termination. He submits that there is no illegality in the order of termination. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the order of Deputy Commissioner is well founded. The Deputy Commissioner, has considered the allegation against the petitioner and after finding the same true and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. This court also finds that there is no illegality in the order of termination. As such no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.