DEEP SHIKHA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF RAVINDRA NARAYAN UPADHAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has interalia sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 01.03.2011 issued by the respondent no.3 and for quashing the Memo No.77 dated 21.04.2010 passed by the respondent no.4. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to respondents for reinstatement in services with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Block Account Manager vide letter dated 01.10.2008 issued by State RCH Officer Jharkhand, Namkum Ranchi. The appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis under the National Rural Health Mission, Government of Jharkhand in pursuance of a selection in the walk-in interview. In pursuance to the said appointment order, the petitioner joined the aforesaid post and continued to discharge her duties most diligently and utmost sincerity with satisfaction of the authorities but while working as such on the basis of a complaint which was lodged on the behest of Seema Pandey who by misusing the signature of the alleged complainant put on blank paper for the purpose of marking their attendance. Basing on the such complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. Vide suspension order dated 26.04.2010 issued by the respondent no.4 who had no authority or power to put the petitioner under suspension. Since, he was not appointing nor controlling or disciplinary authority of the petitioner. The petitioner immediately was served with a show cause on a very same date i.e. on 21.04.2010 to give explanation with regard to the complaint dated 16.04.2010 as per Annexure-4 to the writ petition. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her written clarification/explanation to respondent no.4 giving detailed submissions as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 issued a letter to respondent no.4 by annexing all explanation submitted by the petitioner to re-investigate the matter in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner as evident from Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Thereafter, services of the petitioner has been terminated vide letter dated 01.03.2011 as per Annexure-9 to the writ petition which is impugned in this writ application.

(3.) Mr. Sarju Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the impugned order of termination has been passed without observing the Principle of natural Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the termination order was tainted with stigma, therefore full-fledged inquiry ought to have been conducted prior to termination of the petitioner since, the same has not been followed. The impugned order of termination is not sustainable being bereft of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the action of the respondents amounts to colourable exercise of power which cannot be sustained on the anvil of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.