LALITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2010 dated 4th September, 2014 whereby the writ petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and the order of termination passed by the respondents State Government of this appellant dated 11th June, 2010 has been confirmed.

(2.) The appellant is the original petitioner who has instituted W.P. (S) No.3583 of 2010 challenging the order of termination passed by the respondents State dated 11th June, 2010. This appellant (original petitioner) was appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika of Govindpur Cente, District Dumka vide order dated 11th August, 2009 (Annexure 7 to this memo of appeal). It further appears from the facts of the case that for the period running from 24th June, 2008 to 27th June, 2008, while the petitioner was working as 'Sevika', without taking leave, she appeared in the Matriculation examination and on the basis of clearance of Matriculation examination, she was selected on the post of Anganwari Sevka. Previously, she was employed as Sevika at the said Centre of district Dumka. Secondly, no leave application was forwarded to anyone. Thirdly, no leave was ever granted to this appellant. Fourthly, she was absent but she availed honorarium for the aforesaid period during the leave. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the charges were found to be true in the enquiry report. Hence, her services were terminated with effect from 11th June, 2010, which was challenged by this appellant in a writ petition preferred by her being W.P. (S) No. 3583 of 2010 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4th September, 2014. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, this appellant has been appointed as Anganwari Sevika vide appointment letter dated 11th August, 2009 and, therefore, any misconduct of the previous period i.e. prior to her appointment cannot be taken into consideration for terminating her services. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, nor, by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka while passing the impugned order dated 11th June, 2010 which was challenged in the writ petition.