SHOBHA RANI MAHATO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court.....:....Mr. Surnit Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika for the Anganbari Centre of Village Birigora, district East Singbhum with effect from 24th July. 2007. The appointment letter is at annexure 1 to the memo of the petition and thereafter the petitioner was working honestly, diligently sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that some dissatisfied soul., must have preferred complaints and without any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner unilaterally arbitrarily and abruptly vide letter dated 31st March. 2008 (Annexure 3 to the memo of the petition) and hence the same deserves to be dismissed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order at annexure 3 shows no reason for termination. Thus the impugned order is a non -speaking one. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order some communication bearing letter No. 206. dated 15th February. 2008, have been relied upon. This letter was issued by the District Programme Office. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though this document is relied upon copies of these communications was not supplied to the petitioner and hence there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the order at annexure 3 deserves to be set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. I, hereby quash and set aside the order dated 31st March. 2008. passed by respondent No.4. which is at annexure 3 to the memo of the petition for the following facts and reasons: