Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner, prior to termination of her service. He submits that the appointment of the respondent No. 6 should be set aside and the petitioner should be re-instated into service due to violation of natural justice.

7. The learned counsel for the State respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had never applied for 2 (two) months leave and neither was the same granted to the petitioner by any of the State respondents. She also submits that as a complaint has been lodged by the Anganwadi Helper on 29.10.2014 and the Circle Supervisor on 31.10.2014, regarding the absence of the petitioner from duty, the respondent No. 5 had directed the Statistical Assistant to make an enquiry into the matter. The Statistical Assistant in his Enquiry Report dated 18.11.2014 stated that he visited the residence of the petitioner's father and met the father and also the brother of the petitioner, who both confirmed that the petitioner had run away with one Haider Ali and they had no communication with her since August, 2014. In his Enquiry Report, the Statistical Assistant also stated that the petitioner had left her husband and 2 children and run away with the said Haider Ali of Jamdarbori.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

10. The stand of the petitioner that she had applied for leave and that it was granted, has been denied by the respondents. The petitioner is also unable to produce any document, showing that the leave applied for was granted to her. The petitioner has not denied her 2 nd marriage to Mr. Haider Ali. However, the petitioner has taken the stand that she is living with her new husband in her father's house, in the same village where the Anganwadi Center is located. On the other hand, the Enquiry Report of the Statistical Assistant and the Certificate issued by the Chairman of 11 No. Bonmaja VCDC, Bobardhana Development Block on 21.10.2016 states that the petitioner is not living in the Kuchiakhanda village any longer. Assuming that the Enquiry Report and Certificate dated 21.10.2016 are true, there is no infirmity with the stand taken by the State respondents that notice could not be issued to the petitioner. The contradictory stand of the parties clearly shows that there are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided by this Writ Court. The above being said, this Court finds that the respondent No. 5 had issued the Advertisement dated 06.10.2015, for appointment to the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker in Kuchiakhanda No. 359 Anganwadi Center.