HEMANTI TOPNO @ HEMANTI JOJO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred by Anganbari Sevika mainly for the reason that despite the petitioner was appointed on 7th August, 2007 vide letter at Annexure -4, her services have been brought to an end on 23rd May, 2008 vide letter at Annexure -5, wherein, it has been stated that by some letter dated 3rd May, 2008, her services have been terminated and, thereafter, information about the letter dated 23rd May, 2008 was given to the petitioner. Thus, neither the petitioner was given any notice, nor hearing, nor original termination letter dated 3rd May, 2008, which is referred at Annexure -5, was ever given to the petitioner and abruptly, arbitrarily, unilaterally and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end by letter dated 23rd May, 2008 and vide letter dated 3rd May, 2008. No reason has been given in any of the letters dated 3rd May, 2008 and 23rd May, 2008. It is vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the so -called secret letter dated 3rd May, 2008 and copy thereof was never given to the petitioner and it reflects, from the original file which is presented before this Court, that only some allegations were levelled by dissatisfied souls against the petitioner and just hearing the complaints, the services of the present petitioner have been brought to an end, as the complaints made are, the gospel truth.

(2.) I have also perused the so -called secret letter dated 3rd May, 2008 from the original file, which is presented by the counsel for the State. Only one sided version has been reflected in the letter dated 3rd May, 2008, written by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Simdega. Now, it is orally submitted by learned Counsel for the State that inquiry was also conducted. It is also not known to the petitioner that on which date notice was issued, who were called for inquiry and whose version has been believed by the so -called inquiry officer of the Government and what is the so called inquiry report. Everything has been kept in dark. No copy of the inquiry report has been given to the petitioner and, therefore, it is submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioner is thoroughly an arbitrary, unilateral and is in gross violation of natural justice.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: