Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 319 (JHR)

Rekha Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-31

ANANDA SEN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order as contained in letter No.657 dated 11.08.2017 (which is at Annexure 2, page 16 of the writ application), by which the Child Development Project Officer, Chas(Rural) (respondent No.4) has dismissed the petitioner, who was working as Anganbari Sevika. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly selected as Anganbari Sevika and was working since 18th October, 2004 in Kelia Dabar, Chas (Rural) Bokaro Angabari Centre. He submits that without any notice, petitioner has been disengaged by the order issued by Child Development Project Officer, which is not only cryptic, but, shows absolute non-application of mind. 4. Counsel for the respondents-State, in support of the order, admits that no reason has been given, but, in the Counter Affidavit detail reason has been given why the petitioner has been disengaged. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 contained in Memo No.657 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Chas (Rural), Bokaro which is a one line order, which reads as under:- ^^mijksDr fo"k;d ftyk lekt dY;k.k inkf/kdkjh ds Kkikad&1464@l0d0 fnukad&02-08-2017 ds }kjk vkidks p;u eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA** 6. Aforesaid letter gives reference to Memo No.1464/Sa.ka. dated 02.08.2017, which is also on record along with counter affidavit. Said letter only says that as per recommendations, petitioner and others have been removed. Thus, on the face of the aforesaid two letters, I find that the same are unreasoned one and cryptic. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohindra Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 , now it is well settled principle of law that reasons to the order cannot be supplemented through affidavit and respondents cannot now add reasons to it, which were not there at the time of passing of the order. 7. Since the impugned order is unreasoned order without application of mind, I set aside the same. Thus, the order as contained in letter No.657 dated 11.08.2017 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Child Development Project Officer, Chas(Rural), Bokaro to pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Thus, the order as contained in letter No.657 dated 11.08.2017 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Child Development Project Officer, Chas(Rural), Bokaro to pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. This writ application, thus, stands allowed.