URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for quashing the order dated 08.09.2008, issued by the respondent no.4, whereby and whereunder information was given by the respondent no.3 regarding removal of the petitioner from the post of Sahayika, who was working in the Anganbari Centre, Ahilyapur, Giridih and issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 15.09.2008 pertaining to removal of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been informed by the CDPO, Gandey, Giridih, in pursuance to the order passed by Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih and District Social Welfare Officer (respondent no.4), the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sahayika and also for quashing of order dated 07.07.2011 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in Case No.1/10 -11 pertaining to rejection of the appeal and for a direction to the respondents to forthwith cancel/rescind/recall the order dated 08.09.2008 and 15.09.2008 and reinstate the petitioner on the post held by her.

(2.) Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in brief is that during inspection, it was found that the petitioner was absent and the petitioner was directed to file explanation to that effect and, accordingly, the petitioner filed an explanation before respondent No.3 explaining the detailed facts. The respondent No.3 wrote to the petitioner that Sewika of Anganbari Centre, Jova Pandit submitted a written information dated 11.10.2007 that the petitioner was absent from the Centre from 08.05.2006 to 11.10.2006, due to which Sewika is facing problem to run Anganbari Centre and the petitioner was directed to clarify the reasons of absence from the Centre without any intimation. Vide one letter dated 08.09.2008, District Welfare Officer, Giridih wrote to the respondent no.3 stating therein on the basis of letter dated 12.02.2008, issued by respondent No. 3, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih vide letter dated 06.08.2008, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Sahayika of Anganbari, Ahilyapur. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2008, issued by the respondent no.3, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.07.2011 rejected the appeal. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority having no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy and has approached this Court for redressal of her grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the order of dismissal of the petitioner from post of Sahayika is illegal on the ground that the concerned respondents have not adhered the clause 16 of letter dated 02.06.2006 of the Social Welfare Women and Child Development Department. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order of termination is a non -speaking order and no cogent reason has been assigned by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the details of the reply, filed by the petitioner, has not been properly appreciated by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority thereby prejudicing the petitioner and visiting the petitioner with civil consequences.