Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Rinka Das vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 21 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 3118 of 2020
1. Kumari Rinka Das
2. Sarita Kumari ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Woman and child Development Department, Project Building, P.O.+P.S.-
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Director Department of Social Welfare, Woman and child Development
Department, Project Building, P.O+P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O.+P.S. and District-Deoghar.
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. + P.S. and District-
Deoghar.
5. The District Social Welfare Officer, Deoghar, P.O.+P.S. and District-Deoghar.
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Madhupur, P.O.+P.S.-Madhupur,
District-Deoghar.
7. The Women Supervisor, Anganbari Centres, Madhupur, P.O.+P.S. Madhupur,
District-Deoghar. ... ... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
------
For Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Choudhary, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. K. K. Singh, S.C.-VI
----------
-----------
04/ 21.09.2021 Petitioners have knocked the door of this Court for quashing the order
dated 29.06.2020 at Annexure-4, communicated to the petitioners vide memo no.244
and 245 dated 10.07.2020 whereby and whereunder services of petitioners have been
terminated.
The case of the petitioners lies in narrow compass. Petitioners were
appointed as Sevika and Sahika respectively of Anganbari Centre situated at
Bherwa, Nawibux Road (Harijan Tola) Madhupur, District-Deoghar vide letter
No.34 (K) & 34 (Kh) dated 07.09.2009 and since then they were performing their
duties to the satisfaction of the respondents-authorities. The appointment of the
petitioners were confirmed by the District Level Committee and since then they
are working regularly as Sevika and Sahika respectively. It is case of the
petitioners that after their appointment they were sent for training at Anganbari
Training Centre, Jagdishpur, Madhupur, District-Deoghar. After training, they
were discharging their duties since 2009 and never any complaint was made by
any authorities. However, the petitioners were subjected to harassment as they did
not fulfil the illegal demand of their superior officiers and thereafter false
allegations were levelled against the petitioners. Show cause was issued and the
petitioners replied to the show cause. Thereafter the Deputy Development
Commissioner, Deoghar without any authority of law and without adhering to the
principle of natural justice passed an order of removal on the ground that they
were found absent on the date of inspection and hence this writ petition has been
filed.
Mr. A. K. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners argues that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and not tenable
in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that respondents have not even
adhered to the cardinal principle of natural justice and without initiation of any
proceeding petitioners have been terminated on false allegation. Learned counsel
places heavy reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court
passed in the case of Kanchan Devi v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in
2014 (4) JCR 463.
Learned counsel further submits that impugned order is fit to be
quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioners with
all consequential benefits.
Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. K. K. Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the contention of the
petitioners and submits that serious allegations were there against the petitioners
as they were not performing their duties and were drawing honorarium/salary.
Learned counsel further submits that petitioners were issued show cause notice
and asked to file reply but as their reply were not found satisfactory, the Deputy
Development Commissioner has issued the order of termination and as such the
order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Justifying the impugned
order Mr. K. K. Singh, learned counsel submits that petitioners did not deserve to
be reinstated into service.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the
parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioners needs
consideration. The law is well settled that the Deputy Development Commissioner
of the District is not empowered to issue the order of
removal/termination/dismissal in the case of Anganbari Sevika/Sahika. However,
in complete ignorance, of law the order of termination has been issued. Anganbari
Sevika and Sahika are not the personal servant of the State-authorities. They are
the employees of the State and rules and guidelines are attracted in their cases
also. The law has been laid down in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of
Bihar & Ors., reported in 2013 (3) JLJR 497 that;
such power is vested in the Selection Committee, which alone can issue order and
make such recommendation of removal of a Aaganbari Sevika by the Child
Development Programme Officer. The Deputy Development Commissioner has no
jurisdiction to issue such order.
As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial
pronouncements the impugned order 29.06.2020 is not tenable in the eyes of law
and fit to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential
benefits.
Resultantly the writ petition stands allowed.
No order as to cost.
I.A. No.4555 of 2021 also stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Rohit/-
