BHARTI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner no. 1 was appointed as Anganbari Sevika on 23rd March, 1990 and petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Anganbari Sahaika on 26th October, 1995 and their services have been terminated after a period of approximately one and half decade, on 3rd November, 2011, vide order at Annexure 4 without giving any notice and without giving an opportunity of being heard. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that neither any reason has been assigned in the impugned order of termination of the services of the present petitioners nor any show-cause notice has been given to the petitioners so that prior to their termination the petitioners can explain the correct facts before the respondents. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that on perusal of order dated 25th October, 2011 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit), it appears that some preliminary enquiry was conducted and in pursuance of that enquiry, direction was given to the Child Development Project Officer to show-cause the petitioners. But no such show-cause was given to the petitioners before their services have been brought to an end that too without giving any opportunity of being heard.

(2.) It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the allegation levelled against the present petitioners in the counter affidavit is false and incorrect and therefore, order at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that enquiry was conducted against the petitioners and they were also present before the enquiry officers and they were found guilty. There are several allegations levelled by the villagers of the concerned village where the Anganbari Center in question is situated. Apart from the other allegations, the petitioners have not maintained necessary registers also. Moreover, petitioners have not supplied food to the children, who are enrolled in the said Anganbari Center. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and as per Annexure A and B to the counter affidavit, the adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioners and thereafter only, termination order dated 3rd November, 2011 was passed, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition.