- (1.) The present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that without assigning any reason, whatsoever, services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order at Annexure4 dated 27th April, 2010. The petitioner was serving as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 2nd August, 2004, thereafter, she was working sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any objection has been raised by the respondents about her selection and appointment as Anganbari Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that abruptly, unilaterally and arbitrarily, the services of the petitioner have been terminated without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard. Some report has been relied upon by the respondents, while passing the impugned order dated 27th April, 2010. A copy, whereof, has never been given to the petitioner and the petitioner is not at all aware about what is the said report and whether it is also given arbitrarily or not and, therefore, order at Annexure4 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the selection of the petitioner was irregular, as per the impugned order and the impugned order has been passed upon the report, given by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhanbad dated 13th April, 2010 and, therefore, the petitioner's services have been terminated.
(3.) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the respondents dated 27th April, 2010 at Annexure4 to the memo of the petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons:2( i) The petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 2nd August, 2004. Thereafter, she was working honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. (ii) It appears that, never any notice has been served upon the petitioner alleging that her selection was irregular. Never any opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner by the respondents and abruptly her services have been terminated vide order dated 27th April, 2010 (Annexure4). Thus, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice. (iii) It further appears that in the impugned order, some report, given by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhanbad dated 13th April, 2010, has been relied upon. What is stated in the said report is not known to the petitioner. Copy of this document has never been supplied to the petitioner. The State authority ought to have kept in mind that whenever any employee's services have been terminated on the basis of some report, then the said report ought to have been supplied to the employee of the State, unless it is so much confidential. Looking to the facts of the present case, it appears that the report, which is given by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhanbad dated 13th April, 2010, ought to have been supplied to the petitioner and, therefore also, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice.;