Jharkhand High Court
Smt.Binu Mishra & Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 1 February, 2012
Author: Prashant Kumar
Bench: Prashant Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 4959 of 2005
1. Smt. Binu Mishra
2. Smt. Sarika Devi ... ....Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
For the Petitioner: Mr. J.P. Jha, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Verma, Sr. S.C.-1
6/01.02.2012: In this writ application petitioner no. 2 Smt. Sarika Devi, has prayed for quashing of Annexure-1&5 whereby she has been terminated from the post of Sahayika of Angan Bari Center, Pakariya, Block-Pathergama, District- Godda.
It is submitted by Sri Jay Prakash Jha, Senior Advocate that one Kavita Mishra challenged the appointment of Sahayika, Smt. Binu Mishra by filing writ application bearing WPS No. 2042 of 2005. The said application disposed of by Annexure-4 with a liberty to aforesaid Kavita Mishra to file representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider the said representation and dispose it of within three months from the date of filing of representation.
It is submitted that in pursuance of aforesaid order, Kavita Mishra filed a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. It is submitted that Deputy Commissioner Godda gave opportunity to aforesaid Binu Mishra to show cause and after receiving show cause of Binu Mishra, asked Sub Divisional Officer,Godda to make an enquiry. It is submitted that Sub Divisional Officer, Godda submitted his enquiry report, wherein he stated that the proceeding of Aam Sabha is not in consonance with the circular. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner, Godda, terminated the service of Binu Mishra as well as the petitioner no. 2 (Smt. Sarika Devi ) who is working in the concerned Angan Bari Center as Sahayika, by his order contained in Annexure-5. Consequently the Chief Development Project Officer vide his letter No. 229 dated 22.8.2005 ( Annexure-1) terminated petitioner's services.
It is submitted that there is no complaint against the appointment of petitioner no. 2 Smt. Sarika Devi, thus the question of validity of her appointment is not pending before the Deputy Commissioner. In spite of that, he terminated the service of petitioner no. 2 (Smt. Sarika Devi). It is also submitted that petitioner no. 2, (Smt. Sarika Devi) has not been given any opportunity of being heard before passing of the aforesaid order. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner have no jurisdiction to terminate the service of Sahayika -2- on the allegation that procedure laid down in the circular had not been followed. It is submitted that the said power is vested in the Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, Sr. S.C.-1 submits that Deputy Commissioner, Godda had enquired into the matter on the direction of this Court. Under the said circumstance, he has jurisdiction to pass impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner no. 2, Smt. Sarika Devi has been given adequate opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order ( Annexure-5).
Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of Annexure-5 of the writ application, it is clear that Deputy Commissioner, Godda has passed order on the basis of direction given by this Court in WPS No. 2042 of 2005. It is worth mentioning that WPS No. 2042 of 2005 was filed by Smt. Kavita Mishra, wherein she challenged the appointment of Binu Mishra ( Petitioner no. 1) on the post of Sevika of same Angan Bari Center. It is not disputed by parties that in the aforesaid writ application, appointment of petitioner no. 2 ( Smt. Sarika Devi) has not been questioned. From perusal of Annexure-4, it is clear that this Court given liberty to Smt. Kavita Mishra to file representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Godda challenging the appointment of Binu Mishra and Deputy Commissioner was directed to dispose of the said representation. Thus, there is no dispute/complaint pending before the Deputy Commissioner regarding appointment of petitioner no. 2 ( Smt. Sarika Devi) on the post of Sahayika. From Annexure-5, it does not reflect that petitioner no. 2 (Smt. Sarika Devi) was given any opportunity of hearing by the Deputy Commissioner. Annexure-5 reveals that only complaint filed against Binu Mishra and her explanation was taken into consideration by Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner no. 2 ( Smt. Sarika Devi) without giving her an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the same is violative of principles of natural justice.
It further appears that Deputy Commissioner, Godda ordered for terminating the service of petitioner no. 2 ( Smt. Sarika Devi) on the ground that the procedure laid down in the circular has been followed in her appointment. Under the circular ( as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), Deputy Commissioner has no power to cancel the appointment of Sahayika if there is any violation of procedure in her appointment. The said power is vested in Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand.
Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that order of -3- termination of the petitioner no. 2, (Smt. Sarika Devi) is without jurisdiction.
In view of the reasons stated herein above, this application is allowed. Annexure-5 and consequential order as
contained in Annexure- 1, issued by CDPO, Pathergama as contained in letter no. 229 dated 22.8.2005 is hereby quashed.
Respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner no. 2, namely, Smt. Sarika Devi on the post of Sahayika. However, she is not entitled to back wages because she has not worked during the said period.
( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-