Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jamini Kanta Majhi vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 1 April, 2019
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
1
1.04.2019
t. No. 24
tem No. 23
pk.
WP No. 3774(W) of 2019
Jamini Kanta Majhi
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Indrajeet Das Gupta,
Mr. Brojesh Jha,
Mr. Arunava Ganguly,
Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar for the petitioner
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, AGP,
Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas for the State
The petitioner is a member of the Other Backward Classes. She was working as the Self
Help Group Cell Worker and Data Entry Operator of NRLM Project in Arsha Development Block,
Purulia since 14th July 2006. By an order dated 18th December 2018 the Block Development
Officer, Arsha Development Block passed an order whereby it was mentioned that as the
petitioner was not discharging his duties properly since very long his service is no longer required
in the office. The petitioner was directed to hand over all the documents lying with him to one
Susmita Singha, WDO of the Block immediately.
The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the said order was passed behind his back
without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
The petitioner relies upon a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Arsha
Development Block and the Executive Officer of the Arsha Panchayat Samiti dated 16th August
2017 whereby the petitioner was certified to be working with satisfaction for the Development of
Self Help Group at Upa-Sangha, Sangha and Block Level. It was certified that he was able to
impart management training for the Self Help Group functioning. He was hard working,
technically sound and having a good moral character.
2
The petitioner claims that the impugned order has been passed immediately after his wife
contested in the West Bengal Panchayat Election, 2018 as a candidate of the Bharatiya Janata
Party and was elected to the Beldih- PS. 21 Panchayat Samity. The impugned order is a counter-
blast in connection with the election of his wife. The petitioner prays for setting aside of the
aforesaid impugned order dated 18th December 2018.
Since the primary grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without
giving him an opportunity of hearing and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
respondent have not been able to show before this court that the petitioner was heard before
passing the order impugned accordingly, the said order appears to have been passed contrary to the principle of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. The principle of audi alterem partem is well recognized. No person should be condemned unheard. A statutory authority before taking a decision is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the affected party otherwise the action of the said authority cannot pass the test of reasonableness and fair play. There must be fair play in action.
In view of the settled provision of law, the impugned order dated 18th December 2018 cannot stand and is set aside. However, the respondents will be at liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, if occasion so arises.
W.P. 3774 (W) of 2019 is allowed.
Since the writ petition has been disposed of without calling for any affidavits, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
The affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with the record. Urgent certified copy of this order be delivered to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Amrita Sinha, J.) 3