Jharkhand High Court
Dewanti Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 17 April, 2015
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 709 of 2007
Dewanti Devi W/o Bijay Prasad, resident of village Basadih, P.O. Jabra, P.S.
Mandu, District- Hazaribagh ..... ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh
3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh
4. District Program Officer, Hazaribagh
5. Child Development Project Officer, Churchu, P.O & P.S. Churchu,
District-hazaribagh.
6. Smt. Bimla Devi wife of not known to the petitioner, Supervisor Churchu
Block, Churchu, P.O. & P.S. Churchu, District-Hazaribagh, At, P.O. & P.S.
Churchu, District Hazaribagh.
7. Smt. Lalita Kumari Wife of not known to the petitioner, Sewika, Churchu
Block, Churchu, P.O. & P.S. Churchu, District-Hazaribagh, At, P.O & P.S.
Churchu, District Hazaribagh. ..... .... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr.Rohit, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. M. Jalisur Rahman, J.C. to GP-III
-----------
th
CAV on:27 March, 2015 Pronounced on 17/04/2015
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia
prayed for quashing of order as contained in Memo no.679 dated 12.12.2006
(Annexure-5) issued under the signature of respondent no.5 by which the
petitioner has been informed that in pursuance of letter no.905 dated
04.12.2006of respondent no.4, the petitioner has been dismissed from services by respondent no.3.
2. The factual matrix sans details, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was selected on the post of Sahaika (Assistant) by a duly constituted Selection Committee meeting held on 09.06.2004 in pursuance to the order passed by respondent no.5. Consequent upon the said selection, the petitioner has been posted as Sahaika at Aanganbari Centre Basidih-I vide order dated 11.09.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ application). After coming to know the irregularities committed by one Sewika Latika Kumari, the petitioner filed 2 an application on 10.11.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (respondent no.2) and requested for doing the needful in the matter as depicted in Annexure-2 to the writ application. The aforesaid fact was also flashed in local daily 'Hazaribagh Jagaran' dated 11.11.2006, regarding the fact that the complaint was made to the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner with respect to the irregularity committed by the Sewika in purchasing and distributing the fooding of children of Aaganbari. The said newspaper cutting dated 11.11.2006 has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. The allegation of the petitioner has been duly supported by the villagers of Basadih, Churchu Block, Hazaribagh by application dated 01.12.2006, where in application to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (respondent no.2) the allegations made by the said Sewika with respect to snatching of money by the petitioner was false, but, the villagers have pointed out the illegality committed by the Sewika, as per annexure-4 to the writ application. To the utter surprise and consternation, the respondent no.5 issued Memo no.679 dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure-5), informing the petitioner that her selection has been cancelled by respondent no.3, in view of the letter no.905 dated 04.12.2006 of District Program Officer (respondent no.4).
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for mitigating her grievance.
3. Heard Mr. Rohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Jalisur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that before issuance of impugned order (Annexure-5) neither any enquiry was held nor 3 any notice of show cause was issued upon the petitioner nor any ground of reason has been assigned therein, rendering it illegal being infraction of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel has further submitted that from the impugned order (Annexure-5), it appears that the respondents in order to penalize the petitioner has issued the impugned order, which is a cryptic and non speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents are duty bound to issue notice of show cause and ought to have afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the order of punishment and the respondents have no authority under the law to cancel the selection of the petitioner without complying the principles of natural justice.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit repelling the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been disclosed that the petitioner was selected as Sahaika in the general meeting dated 09.06.2004 and was deputed in Basadih-I, Centre of Aaganbari Project on the terms and conditions as enumerated in Memo no.174 dated 11.09.2004 (as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). In course of time, the petitioner together with the unwarranted interference of her husband began to disturb the smooth functioning of the Centre and eventually the Centre faced closure for the time being. The petitioner was issued show cause vide Memo no.579 dated 13.10.2006, but she even refused to receive the notice and vide letter issued under Memo no.589 dated 19.10.2006, she was suspended. Photo copy of the Memo no.579 dated 13.10.2006 and Memo no.589 dated 19.10.2006 have been annexed as annexure- B and C to the counter affidavit. It has further been disclosed in the counter affidavit that the matter was finally enquired into by the Deputy Director, Welfare, North Chhotanagpur Division, who after spot enquiry 4 recommended legal action against the petitioner and in strict adherence to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding uninterrupted supply of supplementary nutrition at Aaganbari Centre, vide order dated 07.10.2004 passed in the Civil Writ No.1996/2001, recommended for cancellation of her selection vide letter no.578 dated 28.11.2006, under annexure-D to the counter affidavit. The petitioner has also violated the terms and conditions of Clause-3 of the letter of selection vide Memo no.174 dated 11.09.2004. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that with the approval of the competent authority, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled and the same was communicated vide letter no.905 dated 04.12.2006 and Memo no.679 dated 12.12.2006 and subsequently, an F.I.R was lodged vide fardbeyan bearing letter no.79 dated 05.02.2007. Photo copies of the letter no.905 dated 04.12.2006, Memo no.679 dated 12.12.2006 and letter no.79 dated 05.02.2007 have been annexed as Annexures-E, F and G to the counter affidavit.
It is further submitted that the post of Sahaika is not a Government post and a fixed honorarium is paid as remuneration and that Sahaika is not a public servant. It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that after termination of selection of the petitioner one Arti Devi wife of Sri Arun Sao has been selected as Sewika for the Basadih-I, Centre and pursuant thereto the selection letter has also been issued to her but, due to disturbance by the petitioner and her husband, she has not been presently working at the Centre and the same Centre has been running by only Sewika. It has further been stated that on enquiry, the petitioner was found working against the interest of the beneficiaries of the projects. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 5
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit has submitted that the letter dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure-B to counter affidavit) is only a warning letter which cannot be construed as a show cause notice and the allegations made in letter dated 13.10.2006 is false and concocted and the suspension letter dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit) is issued without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the so called enquiry made by the Deputy Director, Welfare, North Chotanagpur Division is only the paper work and no villagers have spoken anything against the petitioner in the aforesaid spot verification and also no F.I.R has been lodged against the petitioner for defalcation of public money to the best of her knowledge. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason behind the termination of the petitioner is only that the petitioner had raised her voice against the malpractices carried out by the respondent no.6 (annexed as Annexure-2 and 2/1 to the rejoinder).
7. Countering impassioned submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, where in paragraph 4, it has been mentioned that the services of the petitioner has been terminated vide Memo no.679 dated 12.12.2006 after approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh (as per Annexure-A to the said affidavit). In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, it has also been submitted that if the services of the petitioner is not found satisfactory, she can be removed from the post as per Clause-3 of the appointment letter which reads as under:
6
"lsfodk@lgkf;dk }kjk vius dRrZO;kssa ds larks"kizn fuokZg ugha fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa rFkk muds }kjk dk;Z esa vfu;ferrk@ykijokgh cjrs tkus ij ;k vU; dkj.kks ls 15 fnuks ls vf/kd dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr jgus ij mUgsa p;u eqDr fd;k tk ldrk gSa A fcuk iwoZ lwpuk@vuqefr ds dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr ugh jgsxhA"
A photo copy of the appointment letter dated 11.09.2004 has been annexed as Annexure-B. It has also been stated that serious complaint has been received against the petitioner and she has been asked explanation vide Memo no.579 dated 13.10.2006 as to why her selection cannot be cancelled, as per annexure-C to the said affidavit. In paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that Deputy Director, Welfare, North Chhotanagpur also visited the Centre and then CDPO and villagers informed that the Centre was closed for two months and accordingly, the Deputy Director, Welfare, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh wrote a letter to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh vide Memo no.578 dated 28.11.2006 to take proper action against the petitioner (annexed as annexure-D to the said affidavit). It has also been stated in the said affidavit that the post of Sahaika is on the fixed honorarium and she is the contractual appointee. Learned counsel for the petitioner apart from assailing the impugned order of termination, on the basis of facts available on records, has also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. as reported in 2010 (2) JCR 294 (Jhr.). In the said judgment in paragraph 5 to 7 exhaustive reasons have been enumerated and the counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the well reasoned order of this Court reported in case of Shanti Devi (supra).
8. After giving my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of facts on records, the impugned order of termination, vide 7 annexure-5 does not stand to reason. Accordingly, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Churchu, Hazaribagh, mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(I) It appears that after appointment as Aanganbari Sahaika vide order dated 11.09.2004, the petitioner has discharged her duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authority, but, to the utter surprise and consternation, the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with by order dated 12.12.2006, which is at Annexure-5 to the writ petition and on close scrutiny of the impugned order (Annexure-5), it is quite apparent that no reason has been assigned in the said order that what illegality has been committed for which services of the petitioner has been terminated. The impugned order is thoroughly non-speaking and cryptic order.
(II) As has been disclosed in the counter affidavit, that some enquiry has been conducted by the Deputy Director, Welfare, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, who after spot enquiry recommended legal action against the petitioner due to irregularity in uninterrupted supply of supplementary nutrition at Aanganbari Centre and the reasons have been assigned in the counter affidavit which lead to termination of services of the petitioner. The reasons assigned in the supplementary affidavit cannot supplement the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ application). (III) On perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-5), it appears that on the direction of District Program Officer, Hazaribagh, vide letter no.905 dated 04.12.2006, the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with. So the impugned order, prima facie appears to be 8 illegal, since no reason has been assigned for terminating the services of the petitioner.
(IV) The impugned order of termination, vide annexure-5 suffers from gross illegality as the principles of natural justice has not been followed nor a fullfledged enquiry has been conducted by giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case. Therefore, the so called allegations/ enquiry which resulted into culmination in the termination of services of the petitioner is illegal, unsustainable and there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice.
9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Churchu, Hazaribagh. The disposal of the writ application shall not preclude the respondents to take de novo action in accordance with law, if so advised.
10. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed and disposed of with aforesaid observations.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Saket/-