Jharkhand High Court
Saraswati Kumari vs The Director-Cum-Member Secretary on 13 February, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 728 of 2025
-----
Saraswati Kumari, W/o Late Ramesh Kuamr Mistri,
R/o Village- Guri, P.O. Bhandar, P.S. Bishrampur,
District- Palamau, Jharkhand ------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The Director-cum-Member Secretary, Jharkhand Child Protection Institution,
Ranchi, office at Jharkhand Mantraalay, FFP Building IIIrd Floor, Dhurwa, P.O. &
P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
2.The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau
3.The District Social Welfare Officer, Palamau
4.The District Child Protection Officer, Palamau ------ Respondent(s)
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I
Mr. Chandan Tiwari, AC to G.A.-I
.........
03 / 13.02.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
2. This is a writ of certiorari. This can be disposed of at this stage
itself without calling for the counter affidavit on the facts in the writ
petition as the impugned order speaks for itself.
3. Vide impugned order as contained in Memo No.2003 dated
03.12.2024, the contract of the petitioner was terminated. Be it noted
that the petitioner was working as Counselor, District Child Protection
Unit, Palamau. There was an allegation that in the said Child Unit,
there was some sexual exploitation of minor girl, but when the matter
was brought to the knowledge of this petitioner, this petitioner tried
to coverup the same and did not take the said allegation seriously. On
this ground, petitioner's contract has been terminated on 03.12.2024.
4. The termination order is stigmatic. Even if a contractual
employee is sought to be removed from service but if the order is
stigmatic, a proper show-cause notice has to be given and enquiry has
to be conducted. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and Others vs. Brijesh Kumar and Another,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2282 at paragraph 19 of the said
judgment has held as under:-
"19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the
ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular
inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination
order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was
not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to
have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination
of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account
of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural
Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which
could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural
Justice."
5. In this case, I find that show-cause notice was issued to the
petitioner and the petitioner replied the same, the same was issued to
the petitioner vide Memo No.1313 dated 03.12.2024 itself. The show-
cause notice dated 03.12.2024 is at Annexure-4. After going through it
is clear that the Director-cum Member Secretary, Women and Child
Development and Social Security Department has sought for
explanation from the petitioner and issued show-cause notice to the
petitioner based on enquiry report. It has been mentioned that if
nothing is heard from the petitioner, it will be presumed that the
petitioner has got nothing to say in the defence. These two letters i.e
show-cause notice and termination order is issued on same date. When
a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, the respondents
should have given sufficient time to the petitioner to reply the same.
Further, if there is an enquiry report which is against the petitioner,
the same should also have been handed over to the petitioner, so that
the petitioner gets a proper opportunity to give a suitable reply. In this
case, though the notice was issued, but without waiting for the reply
on the same day, the contract of the petitioner was terminated. Thus,
the principle of natural justice has been violated. Since the principle of
natural justice is violated, the order contained in Memo no.2003 dated
03.12.2024 is set aside.
6. The respondents are directed to handover the petitioner, the
copy of the enquiry report and seek proper explanation giving 21 clear
days to the petitioner to reply the same. On receipt of reply, the
respondents are at liberty to take an appropriate step in this matter.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of with aforesaid direction.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S.
AFR
