NANDKI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Mohanpur, District Deoghar dated 11th June, 2009 which is at Annexure8 to the memo of the petition, whereby, long tenure of the services of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika have been brought to an end that too withing giving any show cause notice and without any inquiry and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and that too by thoroughly a nonspeaking order and, hence, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons cannot be given in the counter affidavit. The reasons must be given in the impugned order, itself. The impugned order is not giving any reason, whatsoever, against the petitioner and, therefore, subsequently filed counter affidavit is of no help to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Mohanpur, District Deoghar dated 11th June, 2009 at Annexure8, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika at Chakrama village, Mohanpur, DistrictDeoghar in the month of November 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner had served honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. (ii) It appears that abruptly on 11th June, 2009 termination order has been passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Mohanpur, District Deoghar, which is at Annexure8 to the memo of the petition. Looking to this order, it appears that no reasons have been assigned for termination of the services of the present petitioner. Thus, impugned order is thoroughly a nonspeaking order and, hence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. (iii) It further appears that no show cause notice has ever been given to the petitioner nor any inquiry has been conducted for any of the misconduct, which have been referred in the counter affidavit. Thus, the impugned order at Annexure8 is also violative of principles of natural justice. (iv) Learned counsel for the respondents has heavily relied upon the counter affidavit and the reasons given in the counter affidavit for termination of the services of the petitioner, but, all these reasons cannot be appreciated by this Court because not a single reason has been given in the impugned order at Annexure8. A nonspeaking order cannot be converted into a reasoned order by way of counter affidavit. It ought to be kept in mind by the respondentState that the order especially for termination of services of the Government employee, who is serving since long, there must be a reasoned order. If the reasons are not given in the impugned order, it cannot be supplied in the counter affidavit, otherwise, all void, illegal and nonspeaking orders will be converted into valid and speaking orders. (v) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 in paragraph 8 as under: