D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that though the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect from May 21, 1999, her services have been brought to and end by respondent no.5, arbitrarily, unilaterally and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, vide order dated November 8, 2008 (Annexure 3 to the memo of present petition), which is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, an appeal has also been preferred by the petitioner under Clause 16 of the Policy, before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, but the said appellate authority has also not taken any decision on the appeal, preferred by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, submitted that in view of utter violation of the principles of natural justice, let the matter be remanded to respondent no. 4, so that the petitioner may be given an adequate opportunity of hearing and, if at all any grievances are there, still the remedy of appeal will be available to the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that though the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, is already pending before the appellate authority, nonetheless, if this Court directs respondent no.4 to decide the same afresh, a fresh decision will be taken by respondent no.4, as the petitioner was already in service from May 21, 1999 and her services have been brought to an end with effect from November 8, 2008 and, therefore, hearing of the petitioner will be necessary.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid submissions, I hereby quash and set aside the order dated November 8, 2008 (Annexure 3 to the memo of present petition), only on the ground that there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and direct respondent no.4 to take a fresh decision, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to her representative.;