- (1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th September, 2009, which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of the petition, passed by Respondent No. 4, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an Anganbari Sevika at the Anganbari Center in the village referred to in the memo of the petition. The respondents had visited the said Anganbari Center on 18th June, 2009 and on the same day notice was given to the petitioner, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition, asking for reply regarding several irregularities and only two days time is given to the petitioner to file her reply. Thereafter, abruptly, without holding any enquiry and without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, services of the petitioner have been terminated vide impugned order. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that immediately on 19th June, 2009, reply was given by the petitioner, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition, making clarification regarding the allegations but the respondents, without appreciating the reply, have presumed the proof of the allegations and passed order of termination, i.e. impugned order dated 18th September, 2009, . Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the explanation (Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition), it has been categorically stated that on and from the month of June, 2009 children enrolled in the Anganbari Center in question had to go without meal, because food grain was not distributed to that particular Anganbari Center due to non- allotment of fund and as free meal holds the main attraction for the children coming to an Anganbari Center, number of children naturally dwindled in absence of free meal . It has also been stated in the clarification at Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition that another cause of dwindling number of children is the scorching heat of the month of June (Inspection was carried out on 18th June, 2009 at 10.15 a.m.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that nothing of these explanations was ever considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order and hence the same deserves to be set aside. Counsel for the respondents submitted that a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner, which is Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition and thereafter, impugned order at Annexure 6 has been passed and therefore, this petition may not be entertained.
(3.) HAVING heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I, hereby quash and set aside the order dated 18th September, 2009, at Annexure 6 to the memo of the petition, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh. (I) The present petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika on 14th May, 2004. Thereafter, petitioner worked honestly, diligently, sincerely and to the satisfaction of the respondents. (II) It appears that high ranking officers of the respondents visited the concerned Anganbari Center on 18th June, 2009 at 10.30 a.m. and found poor attendance of children and therefore, on the same day a show-cause notice was issued, which is Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition and explanation was directed to be given within two days. It will be kept in mind by the respondents that at least a week should have been given to the petitioner to reply the show-cause. The petitioner has given reply on 19th June, 2009, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition, wherein it has been explained by her that on and from 12th June, 2009 supply of food grain was stopped and in absence of food grain, children had to go without the meal and as the food holds main attraction for the children enrolled in an Anganbari Center, absence of the same from 12th June, 2009 naturally resulted in dwindling number of children in the Anganbari Center in question. Moreover, scorching heat of the month of June is another reason for the poor turn up. Apart from the aforesaid, few other reasons were also referred to in the reply. -3- (III) On perusal of the impugned order, It appears that the same has been passed without appreciating any point of the reply, wherein has only been mentioned that as the reply filed by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, her services were terminated. Therefore, it is apparent from the impugned order that the reply filed by the petitioner was not considered point-wise, which would have been a proper approach for the respondents before they terminate the services of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I, hereby quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 4 dated 18th September, 2009, Annexure 6 to the memo of the petition, reserving liberty with the respondents to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.;