Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 790 (JHR)

Sangita Rani Dutta v. State of Jharkhand

2019-04-02

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : Petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.1.2016 by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Jal Sahiya of Kukru Gram Panchayat, Kukru. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Jal Sahiya of Kukru Gram Panchayat, Kukru by the Aam Sabha on 18.10.2011. She also attended the Block Level Training Programme. The contention of the petitioner is that in utter violation of the Principle of Natural Justice, Mukhiya, vide impugned order dated 31.01.2016 removed her from the post of Jal Sahiya and thereafter has appointed respondent no.10 in her place. Petitioner challenged the entire process of removal. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been removed from service on some allegations but neither notice was served upon her nor the allegations were enquired into, before removing her. He submits that the conditions of order/clarification dated 18.5.2013 issued by the Chief Engineer–cum-Executive Director Drinking Water & Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand regarding the process of removal of Jal Sahiya, has not been followed while removing the petitioner. He submits that it is well settled that when any person is sought to be removed from service on allegation, show-cause notice must be issued, so that the person can get an opportunity to defend himself and in absence of any opportunity of hearing the order of termination/removal will be bad in the eyes of law. He submits that in this case the entire process which has been followed in removing the petitioner is in utter violation of Principle of Natural Justice, thus impugned order needs to be set aside. 4. Counsel for the respondents-State submits that Gram Sabha is competent to remove the Jal Sahiya. He submits that meeting of the Gram Sabha was held on 19.01.2016 and it was decided to reconstitute the Drinking Water and Sanitation Committee and also to replace the Jal Sahiya (petitioner). He submits that on the basis of the said resolution, the petitioner has been removed from service. He submits that petitioner had knowledge of the said meeting, thus it cannot be said that petitioner was not aware of the meeting. He submits that there is no violation of Principle of Natural Justice as the petitioner was well aware of the meeting which was supposed to be held. He relies upon Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit in support of his contention. He submits that there is no violation of Principle of Natural Justice as the petitioner was well aware of the meeting which was supposed to be held. He relies upon Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit in support of his contention. He admits that there is a clarification issued by the Chief Engineer-Cum–Executive Director, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand on 18.5.2013 clarifying the process to be adopted by which Jal Sahiya can be removed. 5. Counsel for the respondent no.10 submits that she has been appointed by the Gram Sabha, so she has been working since last three years. 6. I have heard, counsel for the parties. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that without affording any opportunity of hearing, she has been removed from service. Annexure-2 is the order of removal of the petitioner which is dated 31.01.2016. Vide the said letter petitioner was informed that a decision has been taken to remove her from the post of Jal Sahiya. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Mukhiya. In the said letter, nowhere whispers the reasons of removal. The said letter is absolutely unreasoned one. Minutes of meeting is on record as Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. From perusal of the minutes of meeting of the Gram Sabha, I find that several allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and taking into consideration the allegation they have decided to remove the petitioner. 7. The Chief Engineer-Cum-Executive Director Drinking Water and Sanitation Department vide office order dated 18.5.2013 has issued a guidelines as to how Jal Sahiya would be removed. As per the said guidelines, the Gram Sabha has the authority to remove Jal Sahiya. Clause-2 suggests that if there is an allegation, the same has to be inquired into by the Block Development Officer or the Assistant Engineer Drinking Water and Sanitation Department. Clauses 3 and 4 provide that the inquiry report has to be placed before the Drinking Water & Sanitation Committee. If the committee is satisfied with the said report, the same will be placed before Aam Sabha, who will take a decision. 8. From perusal of the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, I find that none of the above procedure has been followed. Not only, the order of removal is vague and does not reflects any reason nor any notice was also served upon the petitioner before deciding to remove her. 8. From perusal of the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, I find that none of the above procedure has been followed. Not only, the order of removal is vague and does not reflects any reason nor any notice was also served upon the petitioner before deciding to remove her. Since the petitioner, as per the respondent, is being removed on allegations, it was necessary to issue a notice to show-cause by the authorities, which was not done in this case. 9. Counsel for the State heavily relied upon Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit and argues that the petitioner had knowledge about the Aam Sabha. After reading Annexure-B, I find that it is a general notice by the beat of drums that Aam Sabha would be held on 19.01.2016. The purpose of holding Aam Sabha has not been mentioned. Thus the said notice which is at Annexure-B is irrelevant for this purpose. Moreover the said document is not a notice to show cause, nor directed to the petitioner rather is informatory in nature. Without issuance of notice a decision was taken in the Aam Sabha to remove the petitioner and to reconstitute the Drinking Water & Sanitation Committee. This entire process which has been followed by the respondent violates the Principal of Natural Justice and cannot be sustained. Once there is violation of Principle of Natural Justice, in passing the impugned order, removal of petitioner also cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Thus Annexure-2 to the writ petition i.e order dated 31.01.2016 is hereby set aside after holding that removal of petitioner from service is bad and it violates the Principle of Natural Justice. 10. Thus, this instant writ application stands disposed of. 11. Respondent- Deputy Commissioner Seraikella- Kharsawan is directed to take consequential actions in terms of this order.