RENU KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing Memo dated 09.05.2013 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services and for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of teacher on 17.09.2010 for imparting teaching in the subject of language i.e. Hindi, English and Sanskrit and was posted as Warden in Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls School, Chatra. While continuing as such, a memo dated 22.04.2013, which was received by the petitioner on 30.04.2013, was served upon the petitioner to hand over charge of warden to Smt. Farhat Zabi on the ground that there is some complain from the students in relation to her husband. But in the meantime, vide letter dated 29.04.2013, petitioner was show caused as to why she has not handed over charge in terms of letter dated 22.04.2013 and was directed to hand over the charge within twenty four hours. Further, on the same day i.e. on 29.04.2013, by terms of letter dated 29.04.2013 petitioner was served with a show cause notice containing certain charges and she was directed to file reply by 07.05.2013. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted her reply vide letter dated 06.05.2013 and thereafter straightway order dated 09.05.2013 was passed whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services, which is impugned in this writ application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has denied the allegations levelled against her, it was incumbent upon the respondents to appoint enquiry officer to take evidence, to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to cross-examine the witnesses and to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and only thereafter, the order of punishment could have been passed. But, in the case at hand, no such procedure has been followed by the respondents rendering the impugned order vulnerable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from bare perusal of order dated 09.05.2013, it appears that in the meeting presided over by Deputy Commissioner, Charta on 09.05.2013, in which, it was decided to dismiss the petitioner and in terms of the said decision, the impugned order of dismissal from services has been passed. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that Deputy Commissioner, Chatra has not heard the petitioner or no notice of such meeting was ever issued upon the petitioner. Furthermore, on perusal of impugned order it further appears that no enquiry officer was ever appointed, no evidence was recorded and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr as reported in (2010) 11 SCC 278 and in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and Ors Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Ors as reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336.