Pramila Devi vs State of Jharkhand and Others

N.N. Tiwari, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order contained in Letter No. 497 dated 12.8.2010 (Annexure-9), issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Dumka (Sadar), whereby the petitioner has been informed that her selection as Anganbari Sevika is cancelled in view of the Letter No: 765 dated 7.8.2010 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dumka.

According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Anganbari Sevika for Pakarla Anganbari Centre, District-Dumka on 22.5.1999 after due selection and approval of the competent authority. The petitioner has been working in the said Anganbari Centre as Anganbari Sevika since then. There was some complain regarding the dispute between the Sevika and the Anganbari Sahaika of the said Centre in the year 2009. An enquiry was conducted and it was found that the Anganbari Sahaika'' was creating some trouble in smooth functioning of the said Anganabri Centre. However, the Anganbari Sahaika was dissatisfied and she was preferring representations here and there. Under the said ground of difference between the Anganbari Sahaika and the petitioner, the selection of the petitioner as well as of Anganbari Sahaika has been cancelled by the impugned Letter No. 497 dated 12.8.2010.

The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been removed from the post illegally and arbitrarily without giving any notice informing the reason and without affording any opportunity of defending herself. It would be evident from the impugned order (Annexure-9) that some stigma has been cast against her and the allegation has been made and on that basis the petitioner has been terminated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that removal of the petitioner on the said allegation is by way of punishment, which cannot be imposed without following the legal procedures and observance of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has not been given any notice or opportunity of representation or hearing before issuing the impugned order cancelling her selection and as such the impugned order being violative of the principles of natural justice is illegal and is liable to be quashed by this Court.

The respondents have opposed the writ petition. In their counter-affidavit, it has been stated, inter alia, that there was complain of dispute between the Anganwari Sevika and the Anganbari Sahaika of the said Centre and as such one Smt. Sarojini Soren, Lady Supervisor of some other area, was asked to inquire into the said dispute. After enquiry, it was reported by the said Lady Supervisor that the petitioner was not giving proper nutrition to the beneficiaries of the village and she was not discharging her duty properly. She also found that the petitioner as well as the Anganbari Sahaika (Smt. Bimla Devi) are indisciplined women and due to clash of their self-interest, there was difficulty in smooth running of the said Centre. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the appointments of the petitioner as well as that of the Anganabri Sahaika of the said Centre have been cancelled.

Learned S.C.-II appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that before cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, an enquiry was held by the Lady Supervisor of some other place and after enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the dereliction of duty and indiscipline. There was dispute between the Anganbari Sahaika of the said Centre and the petitioner and for proper functioning of the Centre, it was deemed fit to cancel the appointments of both i.e. Sevika and Sahaika. The impugned order has been issued in public interest. The same is not bad or illegal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. On perusal of the impugned order dated 12.8.2010, I find that the petitioner has been removed from her post on the basis of the allegations against her of dereliction of duty and indiscipline. It is well established that no punitive order can be passed against any person without informing him or her reasons/allegations and without giving him or her proper opportunity to be heard and without affording him or her reasonable opportunity to defend or represent against his/her cause. Reference may be made to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, .

Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner informing the charges and/or no opportunity of defence was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order against the petitioner. The petitioner was discharging her duties since 1999. She cannot be suddenly and surprisingly terminated without giving her due notice and opportunity of defending herself.

In view of the above the order of removal of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The same cannot sustain. The impugned order of the petitioner''s removal dated 12.8.2010 as contained in Annexure-9 is quashed. This writ petition is allowed.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits and she shall be allowed to continue on her post until valid and legal order is passed determining her services.