KUSUMA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties. The case of the petition is that she was working as Anganbari Karyakartri since 2004 when a complaint was made that she has obtained some forged domicile certificate, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with and the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No.7737 while staying the operation of the order. This Court directed the opposite parties to inquire against the said charges and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months. During that period, the petitioner was allowed to work. The opposite parties vide order dated February 6, 2009decided the representation of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the complaint regarding the forged document has not been found correct but since the center was found to be closed with the inspection was made by Mukhya Sevika and the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Ahikari and relying upon this finding the services of petitioner have been dispensed with against. In this manner, the representation of the petitioner has been dispensed with. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a show cause notice which was given to the petitioner was on a different subject and after filing of the reply and inquiry, the charge was not found proved against the petitioner then the opposite parties taking a new ground for which no fresh show cause notice has been given and no inquiry has been conducted and no opportunity of hearing/explanation has been given to the petitioner and services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. A perusal of the order dated 16.2.2009 leaves no doubt that when the opposite parties could not justify their earlier order, which was stayed by the Court, have resorted to another ground and have dispensed with the services of the petitioner. Learned Standing counsel prays for and granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit in this matter. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. Meanwhile, the operation and implementation of the order dated 16.2.2009, annexed as annexure No.6 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed. The petitioner will be allowed to join and be paid honorarium regularly. Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that nobody has been appointed in place of the petitioner and the post is still lying vacant till date. List thereafter.