RANI KISKU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner is challenging the order dated 26th February, 2008, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition, passed by Child Development Project Officer, i.e. Respondent No. 6, whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika on 13th April, 1999 in Budhudih Anganbari Center, District Dumka and her services have been terminated by the District Programme Officer. Dumka vide letter dated 14th February, 2008, which is at Annexure E to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on perusal of Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition and Annexure E to the counter affidavit, it appears that certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, i.e. negligence in her duties on 6th January, 2008 and for this negligence in duty for one day services of the petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry, and therefore, petitioner is challenging both Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition and Annexure E to the counter affidavit. In case there is any negligence on the part of the petitioner on that particular day, a detailed reply was given by the petitioner, but the same was not appreciated either in the impugned order at Annexure 4 to the Memo of the petition or in the order at Annexure E to the counter affidavit and thoroughly non-speaking orders have been passed, which are at Annexure 4 as well as Annexure E to the counter affidavit. Counsel appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that there is negligence in her duty on the part of the petitioner on 6th January, 2008, which was a National Pulse Polio Day and therefore, her services have been, terminated. A detailed order has been passed by the District Programme Officer, Dumka, which is at Annexure E to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and on the basis of this order, impugned order at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition has been passed.

(2.) Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I, hereby, quash and set aside the order dated 26th February, 2008, at Annexure 4 to the Memo of the petition, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh as well as order dated 14th February, 2008 at Annexure E to the counter affidavit, passed by the District Programme Officer, Dumka mainly for the following facts and reasons :

(3.) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, both the orders, i.e. order dated 26th February, 2008 (Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition) passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh and order dated 14th February, 2008 (Annexure E to the counter affidavit) passed by the District Programme Officer are hereby quashed and set aside.