GENDIA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.591 dtd. 27/9/2013 issued by respondent No.4, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been removed from the services. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the order dtd. 19/9/2013 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhanbad. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Anganwari Sevika after following the procedures of law at Kudamu Anganwari Centre, Tantri Panchayat, Topchanchi, Dhanbad. Thereafter, she started functioning as Anganwari Sevika for the said Centre to the satisfaction of the respondents. However, the respondent No.4 vide Memo No.388 dtd. 5/8/2013 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why she was absent from the duties during the inspection on 1/8/2013 and also mentioned that some irregularities has also been found in her Anganwari Centre. Accordingly, petitioner filed her reply, but the same was not found satisfactory. On 31/8/2013, the petitioner was again found absent when inspection was made by the Child Development Project Officer, Topchanchi and as such, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled vide impugned Letter No.1105 dtd. 19/9/2013 and communicated to the petitioner by respondent No.4 vide impugned order dtd. 27/9/2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for consideration of her case, but no consideration was shown by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Suraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned orders on the ground that for absence of only two days, the petitioner has been dismissed/terminated from services and even the enquiry was done behind the back of the petitioner and also the reply of the petitioner was not considered in right perspective. He further submits that impugned orders are cryptic, capacious and non-speaking order and as such, are not tenable in the eyes of law. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned orders and neither the allegations levelled against the petitioner has been mentioned in the impugned orders, but the reasons have been assigned in the counter-affidavit. Even the enquiry report has been annexed in the counter- affidavit. He further submits that the respondents were aware of the fact that a writ petition has been filed, challenging the order of dismissal, but they were in hurry and have appointed another person, namely Meena Devi, without waiting for the result of the writ petition, which is apparent from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and as such, appointment of Meena Devi is liable to be quashed and set aside.