SRIMANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that respondents terminated the services of the present petitioner vide order dated 9th April, 2008. Against this order at annexure 3 to the memo of the petition, the petitioner has moved before the Dy. Commissioner, Sahibganj, who vide order dated 4th May, 2009 has affirmed the order dated 9th April, 2008 of the Child Development Project Officer. The present petition has been preferred mainly on the ground that no notice was ever given to the petitioner before the order dated 9th April, 2008 was passed. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika with effect from 29th June, 2007 (order is at Annexure 1 to the memo of the petition). Thereafter, petitioner has worked for several months and it appears that some dissatisfied soul has filed a complaint, which was inquired into but neither any notice was ever given to the petitioner prior to holding the enquiry or before terminating her services nor any copy of the complaint was given to the petitioner, which was filed by one Smt. Sunita Devi. Had an opportunity been given, the petitioner could have filed a reply and she could have pointed out that there is no illegality in selection and appointment of the petitioner as an Anganbari Sevika. Moreover, copy of the so-called report, which was referred to in the counter affidavit, has also never been given to the petitioner. Thus, the copy of the enquiry report has also not been given to the petitioner. Moreover, looking to the impugned order, it appears that though the report is relied upon, no copy of this document was ever been given to the petitioner.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Renu Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others, 2012 1 JLJR 133 as well as in Sushmita Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, 2012 1 JCR 294 and has submitted that on the basis of these decisions also the order dated 9th April, 2008 passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Sahibganj and well as the appellate order dated 4th May, 2009, passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Sahibganj deserve to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and as per the counter affidavit there were several complaints received against the petitioner and after enquiry into these complaints a committee was constituted of Sub Divisional officer, Sahibganj, Block Development Officer, Sahibganj, representatives of Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent State that the Committee has enquired into the allegations and the report of the Committee was submitted on 11th February, 2008.