SUNITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner mainly against an absolutely arbitrary order of termination of services, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, dated 10th April, 2008, on the basis of so-called or alleged inquiry which was conducted unilaterally, arbitrarily, capriciously and mala fide and without giving any intimation to the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sewika at Village-Machatand, District-Bokaro with effect from 20th July, 2007. Appointment letter is at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition. Thereafter, the petitioner worked for several months to the satisfaction of the respondents and thereafter, abruptly without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard, services of the petitioner have been terminated by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro vide order dated 10th April, 2008 which is at Annexure-5 to the memo of petition. The impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The so-called inquiry, which has been alleged to have been conducted, but, that is also done ex parte. The petitioner was never invited while holding the inquiry, otherwise, the petitioner would have been pointed out that the petitioner is a resident and belonging to Village-Machatand, Distt: Bokaro. The petitioner is having enough documentary evidences also like Annexure-2, Annexure-3 etc.

(3.) It is also submitted by leaned Counsel for the petitioner that what was the reason for holding an inquiry without inviting the petitioner, is not known to the petitioner. On the basis of some complaints, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The petitioner is not given, even those complaints or gist of the complaints. The so-called inquiry, which has been conducted is not inquiry in the eyes of law. The respondents cannot hold inquiry while sitting in one corner of the room, without giving any notice to the petitioner. Had an opportunity would have been given to the petitioner, the petitioner would have been pointed out, several documentary evidences like Annexure-2, Annexure-3 etc. The complaints which are made against the petitioner are false and frivolous and the petitioner is duly qualified and eligible and, therefore, rightly selected for the post of Anqanwari Sewika. There are no justifiable reasons in fact and in the eyes of law for the termination of her services and, therefore, the impugned order, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro, dated 10th April, 2008 at Annexure 5, deserves to be quashed and set aside.