RAMABEN SANTOSHKUMAR MANGATANI SMT Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT KUTCH BHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only two points which I am required to consider in the present second appeal are as follows :-

(2.) The appellant original plaintiff was aggrieved by the dismissal of her Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1972 by the learned District Judge Kutch at Bhuj and which had arisen as a result of the decree of dismissal passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Bhuj in Regular Civil Suit No. 31 of 1972.

(3.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the impugned order dated April 29 1969 passed by respondent No. 2 the District Health Officer was illegal wrong and without jurisdiction and that the same was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India She alleged that she was appointed as a mid wife at Kukma Maternity Homes Kukma by and order dated January 1965 vide Ex. 28 by the District Development Officer Bhuj. She states in her plaint that she had to go on leave on the ground of maternity and that in the month of June 1967 she was transferred from Kukma Maternity Home to Chirai and on June 2 1967 she appeared before the Medical Officer Kukma. She alleged that she did request the Taluka Development Officer Bhuj tn issue a relieving order and the last pay certificate but no reply was given by him. She also alleged that she also addressed letters to the Taluka Development Office Bhuj and also to the District Development Officer Bhuj to look into the matter but to no useful purpose. She further states that on April 29 1969 respondent No. 2 the District Health Officer by the impugned order Ex. 38 terminated her services. She also alleged that respondent No. 2 the District Health Officer is not the competent authority to terminate her services and she was not given any show cause notice before the termination of hor services. She also states that her husband was the officer of National Cadet Crops and that he had complained to the Superiors of the respondents defendants concerning the negligence of respondent No. 2 in connection with vaccination of National Cadet Corps Camp. In substance she attacked the impugned orders on two grounds :-