BALIKA SOREN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 pertaining to cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner from the post of Aanganbari Sevika and for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Aanganbari Sevika at Baijnadih Anganbari Kendra on 203.2007, vide Annnexure-1 to the writ petition. After appointment on the said post, the petitioner was working to the utmost satisfaction of his superior authorities, but to the utter surprise and consternation, a show cause notice dated 08.09.2012 vide Annexure-3 was issued to the petitioner. In pursuance to the show cause, the petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 26.02013 under the joint signature of respondent nos.2 and 3. During pendency of the writ application, I.A no.3228 of 2014 has been filed annexing the office order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the C.D.P.O., Jamtara, vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition, wherein the services of the petitioner has been terminated by the C.D.P.O., Jamtara on the behest of District Social Welfare Officer as well as the Deputy Development Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of her grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of punishment which has been passed by the respondents, is in the teeth of Clause 16 of the circular dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Government for appointment of Aanganbari Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one similar case has been rendered by this Court bearing W.P.(S) No.2402 of 2010 reported in 2015 (2) JBCJ 424 (Gulshan Bano Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although show cause notice was given under the signature of Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara and time was given for filing of the reply but under the guideline dated 02.06.2006, the Child Development Project Officer is the competent authority to remove the Sevika of Anganbari with the approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. But in the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on direction of the respondent no. 2, the impugned order of termination has been passed by the respondent no. The respondent no.3 has not applied his mind independently so the impugned order is bereft of reasons and is assailable on that ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the competent authority i.e. the Child Development Project Officer has not cancelled the selection of the petitioner and Deputy Development Officer has no power to pass an order for cancellation rather the power vests with the Child Development Project Officer.