MONIKA SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition is directed against the order comprised in, Annexure P -12, whereby the respondents ordered the removal of the petitioner from the office of the Member of Child Welfare Committee, Shimla. The removal of the petitioner from the office of Member of Child Welfare Committee, Shimla was preceded by a detailed inquiry carried out by the State Selection Committee. The petitioner in the writ petition contends that the findings recorded by the State Selection Committee in its inquiry report are infirm, inasmuch as in the absence of standard operating procedures having been formulated and notified by the respondents for adoption by and for regulating the working of the District Child Welfare Committees functioning in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the insistence by the respondents upon the petitioner signing the minutes of the proceedings in the Register as a portrayal of her attending the meeting was uncalled for. She also contends that she had, on 5.8.2013, recorded the statements of the child and the mother along with respondent No. 6 hence it was untenably concluded by the State Selection Committee in its report that she was willfully absent on 5.8.2013. Moreover, she contends that on the strength of Annexures P -4 and P -7 a register qua attendance maintained by respondent No. 5 no conclusion could be derived qua the factum of hers not attending the sittings of the District Child Welfare Committee from 2.3.2013 to 29.6.2013. Besides, she contends that the entire procedure adopted by the State Selection Committee while it not having afforded her an adequate opportunity to project her stand in defence is hence ingrained with the vice of infraction of the principle of audi alteram partem, as such, rendering the conclusions and findings arrived at in the inquiry report, to be vitiated.

(2.) DETAILED replies have been filed by the respondents to the writ petition wherein a focused stand has been portrayed qua the findings and conclusions arrived at by the State Selection Committee in its inquiry report being both vindicable as well as not warranting interference. The allegations against the petitioner fall within the ambit of the provisions of Section 29(4)(iii) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, inasmuch, as, she purportedly failed to, for consecutive three months without any valid reason, attend the meetings of the Committee. Also the State Selection Committee before commencing the inquiry qua the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner had served notice upon the petitioner. She in consequence appeared before the State Selection Committee. She even had projected her stand before the State Selection Committee. Consequently, she having been afforded full and adequate opportunity by the State Selection Committee to project her stand in defence disables her to contend that she was condemned unheard by the State Selection Committee. A perusal of the findings and conclusions recorded by the State Selection Committee in its inquiry divulge that they are both intensive and ad nauseam vis   -vis enunciative upon the material on record in support of the allegations against the petitioner. A portrayal is made in it of each of the defences canvassed by the petitioner before the State Selection Committee as also the defence canvassed before this Court by the petitioner having been taken into account and it having been construed to be unsustainable. The portrayal aforesaid does not appear for lack of emergence of any perversity or absurdity to be unwarranted. A perusal of paragraph 21 of the inquiry report discloses the fact of the petitioner having admitted the factum of a register having been maintained by one of the members of Child Welfare Committee. However, on a perusal of pages 47, 54, 57, 58, 62 and 64 to 69 of the register, by the State Selection Committee unearthed the fact of the pages aforesaid having been omitted to be signed by the petitioner. The factum of the register acquiring credibility is manifested by the fact of the minutes of the meeting being scribed by the petitioner alongwith Mr. B.P. Adhikari. Consequently, with credibility having hence come to be foisted to the attendance register, absence of signatures of the petitioner as well as of Mr. B.P. Adhikari on pages aforesaid, marks the fact of the absence of the petitioner on the apposite dates. Therefore, leaves the allegation against the petitioner of hers without any valid reason absenting herself from the meetings of the District Child Welfare Committee to be sustainable.

(3.) EVEN otherwise the petitioner taking to individually maintain case files portrays the fact of hers not working in collaboration with the Chairperson and other members of the District Child Welfare Committee, obviously when the proceedings of the District Child Welfare Committees are collaborative, joint and not individualistic, hers individualistic approach is antithetical to the very purpose of the constitution of the District Child Welfare Committee whose proceedings are valid only in case the enjoined coram attends them and not when as the petitioner has taken to individually record statements on 5.8.2013 of a child and mother and not obtained signatures of the members which would have rendered the enjoined coram to be tenably and validly convened on 5.8.2013 and its hence portraying the factum of hers diligently performing her duties inasmuch as she having attended the meeting on 5.8.2013.