BIMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly for challenging the order passed by respondent no. 5 dated 12th August, 2010, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition, whereby, services of the petitioner have been terminated.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sahayika at Pakuria Anganbari Centre, District Dumka on 19th November, 1998 by her appointment letter, which is at Annexure2 to the memo of the petition, thereafter, she has worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, for several years. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that abruptly, some inspection was carried out on 12th June, 2010 by the respondents and it is alleged against the petitioner that there were several irregularities, for which, without holding any inquiry and without any proof of the allegations, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end by the order at Annexure1 and, therefore, the order at Annexure1 deserves to be quashed and set aside because without holding any inquiry, the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been presumed to be true and correct. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that termination order at Annexure1 is passed for two employees, one is Smt. Pramila Devi, who is Anganbari Sevika and her services were also brought to an end by the same termination order. She preferred one writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 845 of 2011, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20th July, 2011. The said order is at Annexure5 to the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the petitioner and this Court has quashed and set aside the very same impugned order, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition. So far as the case of Smt. Pramila Devi is concerned, similar are the facts and reasons in this case. The petitioner is challenging the same termination order and, therefore, the order at Annexure1 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 5 dated 12th August, 2010, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition. The petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Liberty is reserved with the respondents to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, if they are so choosing, but, it must be taken in accordance with law and at least after following the principles of natural justice and after holding inquiry.