D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been flied against the order passed by the respondents dated 22.11.2005 which is at Annexure -4 to the memo of the petition whereby the services of the petitioner as " Anganwari Sevika" has been terminated.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed as "Anganwari Sevika" on 7.10.2004. Thereafter petitioner worked honestly. Sincerely diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that some complaint were received by the respondents from private persons and the respondents had given a show cause notice dated 5.11.2005 which is at Annexure -C to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The allegation levelled against the petitioner without holding any inquiry has been presumed by the respondents as a true allegation. The so called inquiry conducted by the respondent -Deputy Commissioner. Land Reform which is at Annexure -B to the counter affidavit is an ex -parte inquiry without giving any opportunity of having heard to the petitioner. It is alleged against the petitioner that petitioner is not the local resident of village Bokadih. Bokaro but in fact the petitioner is local resident of the said village. Before holding the so called inquiry at Annexure -B of the counter affidavit no opportunity was given to the petitioner. It appears that the respondents have put the cart before the horse. The inquiry was conducted first as per Annexure -b and show cause notice. Annexure -C to the counter affidavit was given thereafter. The show cause notice has remained undecided. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that had proper opportunity would have been given it could have pointed out that there is no irregularity in the selection of petitioner and all the criteria have been fulfilled by the petitioner for appointment of "Anganvadi Sevika". The report of Deputy Commissioner. Land Reform dated 8.8.2005, though has been relied upon by the respondents by passing the impugned order which is at Annexure -4 to the memo of the petition no copy has been given to the petitioner and therefore the impugned order was violative of principle of natural justice and therefore the impugned order deserved to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was irregularity in the selection of the present petitioner in the report dated 8.8.2005 given by the Deputy Commissioner. Land Reform which is at Annexure -B to the counter affidavit. Thereafter. the show cause notice dated 5.11.2005 was given to the petitioner which is at Annexure -C to the counter affidavit. Thereafter. the service of the petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 22.11.2005 which is at Annexure -4 to the memo of the petition. Thus, adequate opportunity of having heard was given to the petitioner and inquiry was also conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reform and as stated in the inquiry dated 8.8.2005 there was gross irregularity in the petitioner's selection and therefore her Services have been terminated by the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bokaro dated 22.11.2005 which is at Annexure -4 to the memo of the petition mainly on the following facts and reasons ; - (1) Petitioner was appointment as "Anganvadi Sevika" in village Bokadih, district Bakaro with effect from 7.10.2004 by order dated 7.10.2004 which is at Annexure -1 to the memo of the petition. Thereafter petitioner worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents for more than one year. (II) Thereafter, it appears that some persons filed complaint against the petitioner. Privately these complaints were received by the respondents authorities and without giving any copy of these complaints or summary of these facts to the petitioner the inquiry was initiated by the respondents and order was passed. While holding the inquiry dated 8.8.2005 no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. One line was written in the or her that petitioner was present when the inquiry was conducted. This is not sufficient in the eye of law. Whenever the services of any employee is to be terminated i.e. termination is because of some allegation, then show cause notice ought to be issued prior to said inquiry. In the present case also petitioner was never given show cause notice prior to the so called alleged inquiry dated 8.8.2005 the report thereof is at Annexure -B to the counter affidavit. Had opportunity be given to the petitioner a proper reply could have been given by the petitioner that she belong to the particular village. Neither the gist of the allegation were given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of proper defense was given to the petitioner. (III) It further appears from the facts of the case that after holding inquiry show cause notice was given to the petitioner. Those show cause notice has not been concluded by the respondents. Counsel for the respondents is unable to point out whether any report has been given by the Inquiry Officer upon the show cause notice dated 5.11.2005 or whether the charge levelled against the petitioner as per the show cause notice dated 5.11.2005 are proved or not. That is absolutely not known by the counsel for the respondents. No separate order has been passed upon the show cause notice. It is submitted by the respondents -State that after the show cause order of termination has been passed directly on 22.11.2005. The respondents cannot presume the allegation levelled in the show cause notice which is at Annexure -C to the counter affidavit. It ought to have been kept in mind by the respondents that service of the employee cannot be terminated without the proof of the allegation. Therefore the respondents cannot presume the allegation to be true. (IV) Thus it appears from Annexure -b to the counter affidavit that some inquiry was conducted but there was no show cause notice and from Annexure -C to the counter affidavit it appears that though there was show cause notice issued to the petitioner but there is no conclusion of the show cause. It appears that the respondents have put cart before the horse. First they conducted inquiry regarding certain allegation then they had given show cause notice and the show cause notice has not been concluded and abruptly the order of termination has been passed by presuming the allegation of the show cause is proved. Thus there is gross violation of principle of natural justice. (V) Moreover the so called report dated 8.8.2005 conducted by the respondents have not been supplied to the petitioner. Whenever any document is relied upon especially of any previous inquiry while terminating the service of the petitioner a copy of the said document ought to have been supplied to the petitioner and therefore the impugned order dated 22.11.2005 which is at Annexure -4 to the memo of the petition deserved to be quashed and set aside.;