Chaturbhuj Yaduvanshi Son Of Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 16 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10127/2021

Chaturbhuj Yaduvanshi Son Of Shri Kundan Lal, Aged About 57
Years, R/o 62, Jawahar Nagar, Mungaska, Near Rani Sati Mandir,
Alwar District Alwar Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Cum Secretary,
Child Welfare Department, 20/198, Kaweri Path, Sector-2,
Mansarovar Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

02/01/2023

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow the writ petition and:-

1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof & thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 16.08.2021 passed by the respondent and the respondent may kindly be further directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of chairman, Child Welfare Committee Alwar.

Any other order or directions which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in the favour of the Petitioners."

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed

as Chairman of Child Welfare Committee, Alwar under the

provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children)

(2 of 3) [CW-10127/2021]

Act, 2015 hereinafter to be referred as Act of 2015 by the State

Government vide notification dated 11.03.2020, thereafter, the

petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 28.06.2021 by the

respondents and the petitioner filed reply to the said show cause

notice, thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 16.08.2021

removed the petitioner from the post of Chairman/President of

Child Welfare Committee, Alwar, hence, this writ petition has been

filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.08.2021.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents

have passed the order to remove the petitioner from the post of

Chiarman/President Child Welfare Committee in violation of the

provision of Section 27(7) of the Act of 2015. Counsel further

submits that the order dated 6.08.2021 has been passed without

holding an inquiry as provided under Section 27(7) of the Act of

2015.

In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter of Smt.

Anita Sadanand Vipat Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Civil Writ

Petition No.11080/2017).

Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG submits that prior to issuing the order

dated 16.08.2021, the show cause notice was duly served upon

the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

allowed for the reasons; firstly, prior to passing of the order dated

16.08.2021, the respondents have failed to appoint the Inquiry

Committee; secondly, as per Section 27(7) of the Act of 2015,

prior to removal of any Member of the Committee, the State

Government is under obligation to hold an inquiry, the State

(3 of 3) [CW-10127/2021]

Government can terminate the appointment of a Member after

making an inquiry; and admittedly in the present case, no Inquiry

Committee was appointed by the State Government prior to

removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairman Child Welfare

Committee; and lastly in view of the judgment passed by the

Bombay High Court in the matter of Smt. Anita Sadanand Vipat

(supra), this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and the order

dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondents is set

aside. The respondents are directed to make compliance of this

order within a period of one month. The respondents are at liberty

to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the

provisions of Act of 2015 if they so desire.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

JYOTI /137

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)