- (1.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were appointed as Anganbari Sevika at village Jharia Nahar Toll, P.O. Bero, district Ranchi on 16th March. 2007. Thereafter, they worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, but later on services of the 'petitioners were terminated on 5th September, 2009 without being given any opportunity of being heard and without holding any enquiry. No reason have been assigned in the order of termination, which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that copies of the so-called complaints received by the respondents from the villagers, have never been supplied to the petitioners though these documents were relied upon by the respondents. Further, no opportunity of cross-examination of those complainants have been given to the petitioners. Thus neither copies of the documents which have been relied upon by the respondents, have been supplied to the petitioners nor any enquiry has been conducted by the respondents before termination of the services of the petitioners. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that only one line order of termination have been passed to the effect that explanation given by the petitioners is not up to the satisfaction of the respondents, hence their services have been terminated. This is no reason in the eye of law and therefore, the impugned order dated 5th September, 2009, at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition, passed by the Dy. Development Commissioner, Ranchi deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter-affidavit have been filed and petitioners were given a show-cause notice because respondents have received several allegations from the concerned village, where the Anganbari Centre is situated and since the reply given by the petitioners were not satisfactory, therefore, their services have been terminated by the impugned order dated 5th September, 2009, at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition.
(3.) Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I, hereby, quash and set aside the order dated 5th September, 2009, at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition, passed by the Dy. Development Commissioner, Ranchi for the following facts and reasons : (I) Petitioners were working as Anganbari Sevika village Jharia Nahar Toli, P.O. Bero, district Ranchi on 16th March, 2007. It appears that from March/ 2007 petitioners were working as Anganbari Sevika and they were getting salaries from the respondent-State Authorities. No notice or complaint was ever received by these two petitioners from the respondents from March, 2007 onwards. (II) It appears that the services of the petitioners have been terminated vide 5th September, 2009, at Annexure 4 to the memo of the petition, passed by the Dy. Development Commissioner, Ranchi, mainly for the reason that the reply to the show-cause notice given by the petitioners were not found satisfactory and therefore, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. This is no reason in the eye of law. The allegations leveled by the villagers have been relied upon by the respondents but copies of these allegations have not been supplied to the petitioners. No enquiry for the same has been conducted by the respondents. Further, it is not a case of the respondents that the petitioners have admitted their guilt and therefore, there is no need of enquiry. On the contrary, looking to the impugned order it appears that the reply given by the petitioners were not up to the satisfaction of the respondent-State Authorities, and therefore, their services have been terminated. (III) In absence of any enquiry and in absence of any document to be supplied to the petitioners, there is a violation of principles of natural justice as copies of the documents, upon which the respondents are relying upon, ought to have been supplied to the petitioners. Further, the reasons given in the reply, at Annexure 3 to the memo of the petition, have also not been considered by the respondents.;