SURATHI BALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred mainly against an order, passed by the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, dated 4th February, 2008, which is at Annexure 8 to the memo of petition, whereby, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 7th June, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner has also undergone necessary training to the satisfaction of the respondents and thereafter, she has worked as Anganbari Sevika and abruptly, without assigning any reason, whatsoever, by thoroughly a non-speaking order, the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, has terminated the services of the petitioner vide letter dated 4th February, 2008, which is at Annexure 8 to the memo of petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not giving any reason, whatsoever, for termination of the services of the present petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the officer, who has passed the impugned order, has not applied his mind at all, and upon direction of some another officer, the District Programme Officer, Ranchi, has terminated the services of the petitioner. Thus, nobody knows what is the direction given by the high ranking officer to the District Programme Officer, Ranchi. Likewise, it is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that what must have weighed with the high ranking officer for giving a direction for termination of the services of the petitioner is also not known to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has been kept totally in dark and some high ranking officer has taken a decision for terminating the services of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the District Programme Officer has heard the petitioner. This contention has been opposed by teeth and nail by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that a high ranking officer has given the direction to the District Programme Officer, Ranchi. Thus, hearing has taken place before one officer and another officer has given a direction for termination. This is a gross violation of the basic principles of administrative law. Under an expected principle of administrative law, a hearing, if given by one officer and if the order is passed by another officer, is an illegality and, therefore also, the impugned order at Annexure 8 deserves to be quashed and set aside.