- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred mainly for challenging the order passed by respondent no. 5 dated 12th August, 2010, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition, whereby, services of the petitioner have been terminated.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sahayika at Pakuria Anganbari Centre, District Dumka on 19th November, 1998 by her appointment letter, which is at Annexure2 to the memo of the petition, thereafter, she has worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, for several years. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that abruptly, some inspection was carried out on 12th June, 2010 by the respondents and it is alleged against the petitioner that there were several irregularities, for which, without holding any inquiry and without any proof of the allegations, the services of the petitioner have been brought to an end by the order at Annexure1 and, therefore, the order at Annexure1 deserves to be quashed and set aside because without holding any inquiry, the allegations levelled against the petitioner have been presumed to be true and correct. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that termination order at Annexure1 is passed for two employees, one is Smt. Pramila Devi, who is Anganbari Sevika and her services were also brought to an end by the same termination order. She preferred one writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 845 of 2011, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20th July, 2011. The said order is at Annexure5 to the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the petitioner and this Court has quashed and set aside the very same impugned order, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition. So far as the case of Smt. Pramila Devi is concerned, similar are the facts and reasons in this case. The petitioner is challenging the same termination order and, therefore, the order at Annexure1 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that several irregularities were found out at Pakuria Anganbari Centre, District Dumka on 12 th June, 2010, when the Anganbari Centre was visited by the high ranking officer. Show cause notice was given to the petitioner for explanation of the irregularities. The petitioner had replied, but, as the same was not found upto the mark of satisfaction, her services have been terminated by the order dated 12 th August, 2010, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition and, therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 5 dated 12th August, 2010, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sahayika at Pakuria Anganbari Centre, DistrictDumka on 19th November, 1998, thereafter, she has worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, for several years i.e. for more than one decade. The appointment letter is at Annexure2 to the memo of the petition. (ii) It appears from the facts of the case that high ranking officer of the State had visited the Anganbari Centre on 12th June, 2010 and it appears that some irregularities were found out, for which, a notice was given to the petitioner to explain the same. Explanation was given by the petitioner, which is at Annexure4 to the memo of the petition. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that after levelling charges against the petitioner, without having any prima facie evidence, the charges levelled against the petitioner have been presumed to be true and correct and her services have been terminated by the impugned order dated 12th August, 2010. (iv) Without holding inquiry, services of the employee, who is working since last 12 years cannot be terminated by the respondentState, looking to the impugned order at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition. It has been stated that the explanation given by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory. This is the only reason, which has been given in the impugned order for termination of the services of the petitioner. This is no reason in the eye of law. The allegations levelled against the petitioner ought to have been proved by the respondentState. In absence of any inquiry, services of the employee, who is working since long, can not be terminated. (v) Moreover looking to the impugned order, it appears that services of two employees have been brought to an end, one is of Smt. Pramila Devi and another is of the present petitioner. Smt. Pramila Devi had filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 845 of 2011 and in that writ petition, by the order of this Court dated 20th July, 2011 the very same impugned order, so far as it affects Smt. Pramila Devi, has been quashed and set aside. This Court has perused the said order. Similar are the facts over here. Without holding any inquiry, services of the petitioner have been brought to an end.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 5 dated 12th August, 2010, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition. The petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Liberty is reserved with the respondents to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, if they are so choosing, but, it must be taken in accordance with law and at least after following the principles of natural justice and after holding inquiry. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.;