JETHEE CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant intra-Court appeal has been preferred against order of the ld. Single Judge impugned dt. 05.11.2014. The brief facts of the case which can be culled out from the record are that the appellant was appointed through placement agency known as Bhatnagar Placement and Computer Agency, Jalore on 31.06.2007. Her services came to be terminated w.e.f. 21.10.2011 and that came to be challenged in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1154/2011 and the Single Bench of this Court vide order dt. 12.02.2014 dismissed the writ petition with direction to the appellant to approach the District Collector, Barmer who had passed the order dt. 21.10.2011 on appropriate representation and the inquiry report on which for the alleged misconduct a finding was recorded of her exoneration and the Single Bench expected from the District Collector to decide her representation expeditiously after providing an opportunity of hearing to her with liberty to the appellant to avail remedy which the law permits to her, if any adverse order is passed by the authority.

(2.) Pursuant to the directions of the ld. Single Bench of this Court, representation was filed by the petitioner-appellant before the District Collector, Barmer and after due appreciation of material on record, the authority rejected her representation vide order dt. 08.08.2014.

(3.) The main thrust of submission of counsel for appellant before the ld. Single Judge as well as before this Court is that the opportunity of hearing has not been afforded for the alleged misconduct to her. It was also submitted that although she was engaged through the placement agency but her services were terminated in contravention of law and the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 12.02.2014 confirming the order of termination passed by the District Collector, Barmer is without due appreciation of the material on record and contrary to the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the Preliminary Enquiry and in these facts and circumstances rejection of her representation could not be said to be valid and in accordance with due process of law.