Jharkhand High Court
Pushpa Devi vs Social Welfare Women And Child ... on 4 December, 2014
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 7432 of 2012
Pushpa Devi ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare, Women and
Child Development Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra
3. The District Development Commissioner, Chatra
4. The District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Chatra
6. Mamta Kumari ...... Respondents
........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
........
For the Petitioner : M/s P.P. Roy,
& Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocates
For the Respondent no. 1 to 5 : M/s Antanu Banerjee, G.A.
& R.K. Shahi, J.C. to G.A
For the Respondent no. 6 : M/s Md. Asghar,
&Anuj Burman, Advocates
05/Dated: 4th December, 2014
Petitioner by way of writ petition has challenged the order for
following reliefs:
(a) For, issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/orders(s)/direction(s)
particularly in the nature of certiorari quashing the order issued by the
District Development Commissioner, Chatra as contained in memo
no. 279 dated 19.10.2012, (Annexure-6), whereby and where under
the District Development Commissioner, Chatra has been
pleased to upheld of order of the District Social Welfare Officer,
Chatra, contained in letter no. 448 dated 22.10.2011,
confirming/recommending the removal of the present petitioner from
the post of Angan Bari Sewika.
(b) For, issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/orders(s)/direction(s)
commanding upon the respondents for immediately and forthwith
reinstate the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Sewika since the
date of her termination dated 22.10.2011, in view of the fact that the
same has been done in violation of the norms/conditions (specifically
clause 16) laid down in letter no. 585 dated 02.06.2006 issued by the
Social Welfare Women and Child Development Department,
-2-
Government of Jharkhand in this regard, wherein it has been
stipulated that the District Social Welfare Officer is having no power,
authority and jurisdiction to either show cause or to remove the
present petitioner from the post of Angan Bari Sewika.
(c) For, issuance of an appropriate writ(S)/orders(S)/direction(S)
commanding upon the respondents to strictly adhere with the norms as
contained in resolution no. 585 dated 02.06.2006, which speaks that in
case of any dereliction in duty, the Child Development Project Officer
is the only competent authority to take action against an Angan Bari
Sewika, that too, with the prior permission of the District
Development Commissioner.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had
been appointed as Angan Bari Sewika vide order dated 05.07.2007 in
pursuance to guidelines of Government as contained in memo no. 585
dated 02.06.2006, after being selected by the Aam Sabha. Petitioner
had been duly selected as Angan Bari Sewika vide order dated
05.07.2007and thereafter she started discharging her duty.
Inspection was conducted on 06.07.2011 at the Centre and it was found that very few numbers of students were available in the Centre. It was also found that the said Centre was running at isolated place and the preparation of daily meal was also not under process. On the basis of these allegations show cause was issued to the petitioner and was asked to reply within three days. Petitioner had given due reply denying the entire allegations but without considering and appreciating her reply, the respondent authority has passed the order dated 22.10.2011, terminating the petitioner from service.
Petitioner had earlier moved before this Hon'ble Court vide W.P. (S) no. 7036 of 2011 wherein the writ petition was allowed directing the Deputy Development Commissioner to give approval in view of clause 16 of Circular dated 02.06.2006.
-3-The Deputy Development Commissioner has passed the order on 19.10.2012 approving the order of 22.10.2011 against which the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
The argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in accordance with the government guidelines dated 02.06.2006. There is clause in the said Circular dated 02.06.2006 as contained in clause 16 wherein as per the provision, power of cancellation of selection has been vested with the Child Development Project Officer. The order passed by Child Development Project Officer is required to be approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner being the appellate authority has been vested power to hear the appeal against the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that earlier order dated 22.10.2011 has been passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, who has no jurisdiction to pass the same in view of clause 16 of the guidelines dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure 1 annexed to the writ petition). In view of clause 16, it is specifically mentioned that the Deputy Development Commissioner ought to have approved the order passed by the competent authority i.e. the Child Development Project Officer. Hence, the approval granted by the Deputy Develop- ment Commissioner to the order passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, is contrary to the guidelines dated 02.06.2006.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner has already moved this Court challenging the order dated 22.10.2011 vide W.P. (S) no. 7036 of 2011. This court has not interfered the order dated 22.10.2011, however, the writ petition was allowed with direction to the Deputy Development Commissioner to accord approval within thirty days.
It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Deputy Development Commissioner has strictly acted in pur- suance of order dated 27.08.2012 passed in W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011 wherein the direction was given to the Deputy Development -4- Commissioner to pass appropriate order with respect to Annexure-5 i.e. impugned order dated 22.10.2011 and accord approval in view of clause 16.
Heard the parties.
Petitioner was appointed as Angan Bari Sewika. A Show cause notice was issued to her with respect to commission of irregularity. Petitioner submitted her detailed reply to show cause. The authority i.e. the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, had passed order on 22.10.2011 cancelling the selection of petitioner from Sewika of Angan Bari of the concerned Centre. Petitioner had challenged the order dated 22.10.2011 vide W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011. The same has been disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2012 which is quoted herein below:
"As per Memo No.327 dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure 3), the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra had inspected Anganbari Centre, Ranchi on 06.07.2011 at 11 A.M. At the time of inspection, only 3-4 children were found present, while refreshment was shown to have been prepared for 40 children on the previous day also. Anganbari Centre was being run in the remote area and even refreshment was not prepared for the day. Petitioner was called to show cause.
After considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 22.07.2011, vide impugned order dated 22.10.2011, petitioner's services were directed to be discontinued.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while referring to Condition No.16 of Annexure 1, has vehemently argued that services of the petitioner can be discontinued after obtaining the approval from the Deputy Development Commissioner. However, same was not obtained. Although inspection was done by the Deputy Commissioner himself, however, fact remains that for discontinuing the services of Anganbari Sevika, prior approval of Deputy Development Commissioner is sine qua non in view of Condition No.16 of Annexure 1.
Therefore, present writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to refer the impugned order (Annexure 5) to the Deputy Development Commissioner for his approval. Deputy Development Commissioner shall pass appropriate order thereon within thirty days thereafter.
It goes without saying that if Deputy Development Commissioner approves, impugned order shall stand valid.-5-
However, if approval is declined, order shall not be given effect to."
From perusal of the above order, the impugned order dated 22.10.2011 annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition which was assailed in W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011 is not required to be interfered with. This Court vide the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2012, however allowed the writ petition to the extent for grant of approval by the Deputy Development Officer Which is the requirement in view of clause 16 of the guideline dated 02.06.2006 and in compliance thereof the Deputy Development commissioner has approved, by passing the order dated 19.10.2012.
With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Social Welfare Officer has got no jurisdiction to cancel the selection of the petitioner and as such the approval granted by the Dy. Development Commissioner is contrary to the guideline dated 02.06.2006, in my view since the petitioner has approached this Court on earlier occasion by preferring W.P.(S). no. 7036 of 2011 in which this Court has not quashed the order dated 22.10.2011 rather the matter had been referred before the Deputy Development Commissioner only for granting approval in terms of clause 16 dated 02.06.2006.The Dy. Development Commissioner has passed the order in compliance to the order dated 27.08.2012 passed in W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011 by granting approval of earlier order dated 22.10.2011. From perusal of this Court's order dated 27.08.2012 it is evident that the petitioner has not raised the question of jurisdiction of District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra. From the order it is evident that this Court has not touched the jurisdictional part of the authority who has passed the order. So it is not proper for this Court to look this aspect of the matter otherwise, it will amount to reviewing with the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011.
In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case considering the serious nature of allegation and the order has been passed by the competent authority, I find no merit in the writ petition.
Hence it is hereby dismissed.
-6-The order dated 27.08.2012 in W.P. (S) no. 7036 of 2011 may be kept on record.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Tarun