Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 289 (JHR)

Sandhya Rani Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-29

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2019
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents for quashing letter dated 14.05.2010 issued by District Social Welfare Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on behalf of Deputy Commissioner whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner for appointment on her previous post of Anganbari Sewika has been rejected and; for quashing order as contained in Annexure 9 and for stay of implementation of order as contained at Annexure 9 and 10 of the writ application as the respondents are bent upon to appoint another person. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that pursuant to an advertisement for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika, the petitioner along with other candidates applied and after going through the selection process, petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sewika, accordingly she joined the Anganbari Centre on 5.1.1998 and continued to discharge her duties with utmost satisfaction to the authorities concerned. But due bad luck, the petitioner fell ill and underwent treatment under Dr. P.N. Sutradhar from 03.10.2002 to 4.10.2002. In the meantime, the authorities concerned made a surprise visit in which she was found absent resulting into issuance of letter dated 22.10.2002, by which the District Programme Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent no. 4) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking her to explain her absence on 4.10.2002 at the time of sudden inspection. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her reply explaining the fact that due to sudden illness she was not present in the Centre. Thereafter, again respondent no. 4 issued a notice regarding her absence but the petitioner has already explained her position regarding her absence. Thereafter, vide letter dated 9.12.2002, the respondent no. 4 served a show cause notice as to why her appointment be not cancelled due to non-compliance of direction of superior authority whereas no such violation has been done. Even then also, the petitioner explained that she had complied with each and every order of superior authority. Ultimately, by impugned order dated 16.06.2003 the respondent no. 3-Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, which the petitioner challenged in W.P. (S) No. 6034 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.07.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appear before the Deputy Commissioner, as per relevant rules. Ultimately, by impugned order dated 16.06.2003 the respondent no. 3-Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, which the petitioner challenged in W.P. (S) No. 6034 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.07.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appear before the Deputy Commissioner, as per relevant rules. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred appeal before Deputy Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned letter dated 16.06.2003 issued by the DDC, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, unjust and without authority of law. It has further been submitted that the ground on which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, the District Social Welfare Officer has no jurisdiction to issue rejection order against the appeal of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that during pendency of the writ application, the respondent has come up with order dated 30.07.2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner stating that it is the order passed against the appeal preferred by the petitioner, then the order dated 14.05.2010 casts doubt. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in pursuance to order dated 21.07.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6034 of 2003, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur which was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2015 by learned Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. So far order dated 14.05.2010 is concerned it is the order passed in review. 5. On the pleadings available on record, the facts in chronically order, is that the petitioner joined the post of Anganbari Sewika on 5.1.1998 and while continuing as such for remaining absent from Anganbari Centre she was show caused on 22.10.2002 and finally her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 16.06.2003. Against which, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 6034 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.07.2009, which is quoted herein below: "Heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The whole grievance of the petitioner is that her appointment as ''Angan Bari Sevika'' has been cancelled without initiating any departmental enquiry against her. The whole grievance of the petitioner is that her appointment as ''Angan Bari Sevika'' has been cancelled without initiating any departmental enquiry against her. By filing a counter affidavit, it is stated on behalf of State that the guideline has been issued by the Welfare Departmental of the State Government wherein under Clause (13) provision of right to appeal is there before the Deputy Commissioner against the order of cancellation of appointment as Angan Bari Sevika. Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is being disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur within a period of two weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur shall consider the same on its own merit and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law withing a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner. However, if the petitioner''s grievance is not redressed under appeal, she may avail remedy available to her under the law. (Own emphasis) 6. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representation before the Deputy Commissioner, which was rejected and the same was communicated vide order dated 14.05.2010 by District Social Welfare Officer, which is impugned in this case. 7. From plain reading of two-lined impugned order dated 14.05.2010, it appears that same is communicative order and ground for rejection of appeal has not been mentioned therein neither the order of learned Deputy Commissioner, which finds mention the impugned order was not enclosed with the impugned order dated 14.05.2010. Hence, during pendency of the writ application, when the petitioner raised issue that by order dated 14.05.2010, the respondents have passed the order without giving any reason, this Court vide order 28.04.2015 directed respondents-State "... as to whether the letter dated 14.05.2010 is merely a communication or forwarding letter or a separate order on appeal has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East. .", the respondent no. as to whether the letter dated 14.05.2010 is merely a communication or forwarding letter or a separate order on appeal has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East. .", the respondent no. 4- District Social Welfare Officer filed supplementary counter affidavit dated 19.02.2018 stating therein that letter dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure 10) is a communicating/forwarding letter in the light of order dated 03.05.2010 passed by Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbum, which is quoted herein below: "28.4.2010 Heard the petitioner and perused the documents filed by her. Also perused the records related to cancellation of her appointment. On perusal of records it appears that a proceeding was initiated vide case no. 1/2002-2003 against the petitioner on 3.10.02 by Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum in view of the complain filed by the villagers. Deputy Commissioner directed the District Programme Officer to conduct enquiry and submit report. It was found that allegations leveled by villagers against Srimati Sandhya Rani Mandal, Anganwadi Worker of Anganwadi Centre Mandal Para; were true. As such Deputy Commissioner cancelled the appointment of petitioner vide Order dated 30.12.2002. The copy of the order is available in the record. As there is no provision to review its own order by Deputy Commissioner, the petition may be rejected. Sd/- District Social Welfare Officer Perused the record and order of Hon'ble High Court. In the instant case, the appointment was cancelled by Deputy Commissioner after due inquiry and here there is no provision to review the order passed by DC. The petition is rejected." Sd/- (by Deputy Commissioner) 3/5/10" 8. But, on perusal of record, it further appears that the respondents by way of filing supplementary counter affidavit dated 21.08.2015 has brought on record order dated 30.07.2015 in Misc. Appeal No. 24/2015-16, passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, and in this regard, it has been stated in supplementary counter affidavit dated 19.02.2018 that Deputy Commissioner has passed order dated 30.07.2015 because on 28.04.2015 there was a direction of the High Court in W.P (S) No. 3525 of 2010 i.e the present writ application. But, from plain reading of order dated 28.04.2015 it appears that the Court only asked whether the letter dated 14.05.2010 is merely a communication or forwarding letter or a separate order on appeal has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East and has never asked to pass a separate order under appeal. But, from plain reading of order dated 28.04.2015 it appears that the Court only asked whether the letter dated 14.05.2010 is merely a communication or forwarding letter or a separate order on appeal has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East and has never asked to pass a separate order under appeal. Even otherwise also, if the appeal of the petitioner has already been disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner on any ground there is no occasion to pass another order and are interpreting the order passed by this Court in their own way. 9. Be that as it may be, it further appears from order dated 3.5.2010 that cancellation of appointment of the petitioner was intially cancelled by Deputy Commissioner but as per clause 4 (XIII) of circular dated 24.06.2003, the Child Development Project Officer with prior recommendation of DDC is competent to issue the order of termination. Clause 4 ((XIII) is quoted herein below: 10. Hence, the termination order of the petitioner has been passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. From the discussions made in preceding paragraphs, it is amply clear that the respondents have not dealt with the case of the petitioner in appreciable manner and deviated themselves from the main issue of absenteeism. 11. As a logical sequitur of the aforesaid facts and discussions made in foregoing paragraphs impugned order dated 14.05.2010 as well as order dated 30.07.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, if there is no other legal impediment, from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands allowed.