- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.11.2010, annexed as Annexure-6 to the memo of petition, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar as well as the order dated 07.10.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar which is annexed as Annexure 10 to the memo of petition. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was absent only for a day i.e. 12.10.2010. and for that, the services of the petitioner has been terminated. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the main charge of absentism leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner is serving as Anganbari Sevika since 04.09.2009. Moreover, the said show cause notice is annexure-4 to the memo of petition, whereas looking to the order of termination an Annexure-6, several new allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. In 3rd paragraph of the Annexure-6, several new reasons have been given which has never been mentioned in the show cause notice given to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is travelling beyond the show cause notice and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. The order dated 07.10.2011, which is annexed as Annexure-10 to the memo of petition, also deserves to be quashed and set aside, as no proper opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner for the several allegations which are mentioned for the first time in the termination order at Annexure-6 to the memo of petition and for all those allegations, no show cause notice was ever given to the petitioner.
(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed show cause notice was given on 21st October, 2010 which is at annexure-4 to the memo of petition and thereafter adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and ultimately the order of termination was passed on 10.11.2010 which is at annexure-6 to the memo of petition. This order was also confirmed before the appellate authority namely Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2011, which is annexed as Annexure - 10 to the memo of petition, and, therefore, this petition is not entertainable against a concurrent finding of fact.
(3.) Having heard Learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts. and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct to quash and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar dated 10.11.2010, at Annexure-6 to the memo of petition, as well as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated 07.10.2011, which is at annexure-10 to the memo of petition, mainly for the following reasons:- (I) The present petitioner was working as Anganbari Sevika at Jhunaki Anganbari Centre situated within the district of Deoghar since 04.09.2009. Thereafter the petitioner was working honestly, diligently and promptly and never any show cause notice was given to the petitioner. (II) It further appears that on 12.10.201.0 petitioner was absent from the said Anganbari Centre. On the said date, a team of high ranking officers of the State visited Anganbari Centre of the petitioner and as it was found closed, a show cause notice was given on 21st October, 2010 which is at annexure-4 to the memo of petition. The allegation leveled against the petitioner was about absentism for one day; Moreover, it has been stated in the show cause notice that the villagers have confirmed that the Anganbari Centre is closed repeatedly and petitioner is misappropriating the food grains which is meant for children. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner wherein the allegations were denied by the petitioner It appears that the explanation given by the petitioner is that Anganbari Centre was closed by the petitioner at 1.00 p.m. and she had gone to home. Otherwise, it was open in the morning. The team of high ranking officers came, at 2.30 p.m. at the Anganwari Centre and, therefore, it was found closed. Be that as it may, looking to the termination order at annexure-6 to the memo of petition passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar dated 10.11.2010, it appears that thereafter additional allegations were leveled in its termination order, like the petitioner is beating the children. Moreover, in a project, namely I.C.B.C., the petitioner is not properly working for these. important project Nobody knows what is this allegation. Nothing has been mentioned about these allegations. All these allegations are not justified as to who has supported the allegations of the respondents and who has given what evidence. Nothing is reflected in the show cause notice. The termination order is travelling beyond the show cause notice., which is not permissible in the eyes of law.;