Jharkhand High Court
Meena Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 1991 of 2017
Meena Devi... ......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
4. The District Social Welfare Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
... ..............Respondents.
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
For the Petitioner(s): M/s Ram Subhag Singh and Rajvardhan, Advocates.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-III
-----
07/08.12.2022: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order as contained
in Memo No. 860 dated 21.12.2016 (Annexure-5) whereby, the petitioner has
been disengaged.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Aanganwari Sevika on 31.10.2006.
On some allegation that she had demanded money from the beneficiaries of
Kanyadan Yojna, she was dismissed from her job.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is without
any reason as no notice was served to the petitioner before removing her. On
these two grounds, the petitioner has challenged the order of disengagement.
4. Counsel for the State upon instruction admits that no show cause
notice was served to the petitioner before disengaging the petitioner from service,
but enquiry was conducted wherein the statement of the petitioner was also
recorded. He further submits that the aforesaid enquiry was conducted by the
Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and a report
was submitted wherein it was concluded that the petitioner was at fault and her
guilt was substantiated. He further submits that on the basis of the report, the
impugned order dated 860 dated 21.12.2016 was issued disengaging the
petitioner.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. The impugned order is an one line order, which if translated in
English, reads as follows:-
"In the light of Letter No. 1712/Sa.Ka dated 20.12.2016 of
the District Social Welfare Officer, East
Singhbhum,Jamshedpur, there is an order to disengage
the service. Accordingly the service is disengaged."
7. The District Social Welfare Officer, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur
vide his letter No. 1712/Sa.Ka dated 20.12.2016 has advised to disengage the
petitioner. Consequently the petitioner has been disengaged. The order
disengaging the petitioner is cryptic and without any reason. Though in terms of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder
Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors.
Reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, a reason cannot be supplemented by filing a
counter affidavit, yet I have gone through the counter affidavit. In the counter
affidavit, there is allegation that the petitioner had demanded commission from the
beneficiaries of Kanyadan Yojna. The Deputy Development Commissioner
submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
vide letter No. 242 dated 9.12.2016. The report was a fact finding report wherein,
the petitioner was also interrogated. Several others were also questioned by the
Deputy Development Commissioner who was the fact finding authority. As per the
said report, the guilt of the petitioner was substantiated and the petitioner was
disengaged.
8. Admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the
basis of the enquiry report. Even an enquiry report was not annexed with the
impugned order of disengagement nor the letter No. 1712 dated 20.12.2016 has
been brought on record by the respondents. Thus, not only with an one line
unreasoned order but also without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner,
the petitioner has been disengaged.
9. The order removing the petitioner was of serious consequences.
When there is order of serious consequences, the petitioner needs to be afforded
opportunity of hearing, which was not accorded to the petitioner. From the non-
participation of the petitioner before the fact finding Committee, it can be
assumed that no opportunity of hearing had been given to the petitioner before
disengaging her. Thus considering the fact that no opportunity was given to the
petitioner and also that the impugned order is cryptic and without any reason, I am
inclined to set aside the order dated 21.12.2016 as contained in Memo NO. 860.
Thus, the impugned order is hereby quashed.
10. However, it will be open to respondents to proceed against the
petitioner and take appropriate action after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner within six months from today. If the respondents do not take any steps
within six months, it will be presumed that they are not intending to proceed
against the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner should be reinstated.
11. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
