D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been preferred by Anganbari Sevika mainly for the reason that despite the petitioner was appointed on 7th August, 2007 vide letter at Annexure -4, her services have been brought to an end on 23rd May, 2008 vide letter at Annexure -5, wherein, it has been stated that by some letter dated 3rd May, 2008, her services have been terminated and, thereafter, information about the letter dated 23rd May, 2008 was given to the petitioner. Thus, neither the petitioner was given any notice, nor hearing, nor original termination letter dated 3rd May, 2008, which is referred at Annexure -5, was ever given to the petitioner and abruptly, arbitrarily, unilaterally and in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end by letter dated 23rd May, 2008 and vide letter dated 3rd May, 2008. No reason has been given in any of the letters dated 3rd May, 2008 and 23rd May, 2008. It is vehemently submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the so -called secret letter dated 3rd May, 2008 and copy thereof was never given to the petitioner and it reflects, from the original file which is presented before this Court, that only some allegations were levelled by dissatisfied souls against the petitioner and just hearing the complaints, the services of the present petitioner have been brought to an end, as the complaints made are, the gospel truth.
(2.) I have also perused the so -called secret letter dated 3rd May, 2008 from the original file, which is presented by the counsel for the State. Only one sided version has been reflected in the letter dated 3rd May, 2008, written by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Simdega. Now, it is orally submitted by learned Counsel for the State that inquiry was also conducted. It is also not known to the petitioner that on which date notice was issued, who were called for inquiry and whose version has been believed by the so -called inquiry officer of the Government and what is the so called inquiry report. Everything has been kept in dark. No copy of the inquiry report has been given to the petitioner and, therefore, it is submitted that the termination of the services of the petitioner is thoroughly an arbitrary, unilateral and is in gross violation of natural justice. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6, who has submitted that selection of respondent No. 6 as Anganbari Sevika, is absolutely in accordance with law, but, they are not aware of the illegality of termination of the present petitioner, but, so far as appointment of respondent No. 6 is concerned, it is absolutely in consonance with the law and there is approval by the Government also and, therefore, respondent No. 6 is working as Anganbari Sevika.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) The present petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 7th August, 2007, thereafter, she has resumed her duties as such and salary was also paid to her by the Government, thereafter, on 23rd May, 2008 vide letter at Annexure -5, the petitioner was informed that vide some letter dated 3rd May, 2008, her services were brought to an end. Never such copy of letter dated 3rd May, 2008 was given to the petitioner. (ii) It appears that prior to her termination from services, no notice was given to the petitioner. (iii) It also appears from the facts of the case that the respondents have received some complaints and looking to the letter dated 3rd May, 2008 from the file of the respondents only the complaints are referred and the petitioner's services have been terminated on 3rd May, 2008. Thus, letter dated 3rd May, 2008 is one sided version of the complaint. No inquiry has been referred in the said letter dated 3rd May, 2008. Thus, looking to the letter dated 3rd May, 2008, it appears that only on the basis of allegations, services of the petitioner have been brought to an end, which is absolutely dehors the law and is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, because allegations must be proved, opportunity must be given to the petitioner before her termination. Never such opportunity was given to the petitioner to give reply of the allegations. (iv) Now, it is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent -State that some inquiry was also conducted. This contention is also not helpful to the respondents mainly for the reason that nobody knows, who conducted what inquiry, who were examined as witnesses and what are their conclusions. No inquiry report has ever been given to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given any chance to appear before the so -called inquiry officer. It appears that in termination of the petitioner and in holding secret inquiry also, everything is arbitrary right from letter dated 3rd May, 2008 and letter dated 23rd May, 2008.;