KRISHNA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been preferred mainly challenging the Order No. 1/2011, contained in Memo No. 45 dated 16th February, 2011 (at Annexure 2 to the memo of the petition), passed by respondent No. 5, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that on the date of inspection by the Dy. Commissioner, Pakur, that particular Anganbari Centre, where the petitioner was deputed, was found closed. The aforesaid order was passed without any notice being given to the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika with effect from 19th July, 2007 (Annexure 1 to the memo of the petition). Thereafter, petitioner had work honestly, diligently, sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondents and never any notice has been served upon the petitioner for any irregularities. But, services of the petitioner was terminated abruptly, vide order dated 16th February, 2011 (at Annexure 2 to the memo of the petition). It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that if an opportunity had been given to the petitioner, proper explanation would have been given by the petitioner for her absenteeism for a day. Even otherwise also for a days' absenteeism termination of the services of the petitioner and that to without giving any notice is a shockingly disproportionate punishment. It is further submitted that now some reasons have been assigned for termination, as per Annexures A and B to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, that there was some financial irregularity, but neither ever any notice has been given to the petitioner nor the reasons are assigned in the termination order and therefore, subsequently given reasons in the counter-affidavit are of not much help to the case of the respondents and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that when the Dy. Commissioner of the concerned district visited the Anganbari Centre, it was found closed and therefore, the services of the petitioner has been brought to an end. Moreover, as per Annexures A and B to the counter-affidavit, some financial irregularities have been detected with respect to the Anganbari Center in question and moreover, since the petitioner was a temporary employee (as per Annexure C to the counter-affidavit), therefore, there is no legally vested right in the petitioner to get any notice before her termination. Apart from that the petitioner has also violated condition No. 3 of her appointment letter, which is Annexure 'C' to the counter-affidavit and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the Order No. 1/2011, contained in Memo No, 45 dated 16th February, 2011 (at Annexure 2 to the memo of the petition), passed by respondent No. 5, mainly for the following facts and reasons :--