TAJO DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th September, 2009, which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of the petition, passed by Respondent No. 4, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an Anganbari Sevika at the Anganbari Center in the village referred to in the memo of the petition. The respondents had visited the said Anganbari Center on 18th June, 2009 and on the same day notice was given to the petitioner, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition, asking for reply regarding several irregularities and only two days time is given to the petitioner to file her reply. Thereafter, abruptly, without holding any enquiry and without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, services of the petitioner have been terminated vide impugned order. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that immediately on 19th June, 2009, reply was given by the petitioner, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition, making clarification regarding the allegations but the respondents, without appreciating the reply, have presumed the proof of the allegations and passed order of termination, i.e. impugned order dated 18th September, 2009, .

(3.) HAVING heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I, hereby quash and set aside the order dated 18th September, 2009, at Annexure 6 to the memo of the petition, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh.