KAVITA DEVI @ KAVITA JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 15th June 2012 contained in letter no. 511 issued by the respondent no. 4 the Child Development Project Officer, Chas (Gramin), Bokaro, whereby her services as Aanganbari Sahaiyka in Aanganbari Centre Girdhartand under panchayat Kashibhandariya, Chas, has been terminated.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner and her joining as Aanganbari Sahaiyka in the said Centre, is not disputed by the respondents. However, it has been stated at paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that on 19th January 2012 when the said Centre was inspected, several irregularities were found, such as the petitioner and Aanganbari Sevika were found absent; the Centre was closed; the petitioner and Sevika were not following the time table for running the said Centre . Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking explanation within three days vide letter dated 31st January 2012 and the same was received by the petitioner on 9th February 2012. Again on 9th February 2013, said Centre was found closed. A show cause notice in respect of the same was again issued to the petitioner on 14 th February 2012 vide letter no. 152 and the same was received by her as well (Annexure 3). The petitioner however did not file any reply to the show cause notices issued on 31st January and 14th February 2012. Thereafter, the matter was reported by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 3 the District Social Welfare Officer, Chas, Bokaro. The respondent no. 3 also issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for the alleged irregularities giving her opportunity to reply within seven days. However, reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Again on 25th April 2012, the said Centre was inspected by the respondent no. 4 along with Mahila Supervisor and the same was found closed. A report was submitted before the respondent no. 3 for taking action against the petitioner on 11th May 2012. In such circumstances, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro acting upon the report of the respondent no. 4 and after consideration of the entire matter, has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and also directed by the same impugned order to convene a fresh Aam Sabha for selection of Aanganbari Sevika / Sahaiyka for the said Centre. Counsel for the respondent submits by referring to Annexures F and G dated 14th June 2012 and 26th July 2012 respectively that one Manu Divya and one Rinku Devi have been selected as Sahaiyka and Sevika respectively of the said Centre. In such circumstances, counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order has been passed after giving show cause notice to the petitioner and irregularities like closing of Centre, her absence from the said Centre on repeated inspection were found to be established. Thereafter, new incumbents have been selected which is not under challenge in the present writ application.