Dismissed

Pushpa Devi v. Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2014WPC/7432/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of an Angan Bari Sewika. The petitioner argued the order was passed by an unauthorized officer and lacked required approval. The Court held the earlier decision did not examine jurisdiction and refused to review it for factual consistency or re-examine jurisdiction in this fresh challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition with all its prayers was dismissed; no orders sought by the petitioner were granted.

Pushpa Devi Vs Social Welfare Women And Child… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7432 of 2012

¶2

Pushpa Devi …… Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Women and

¶5

Child Development Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra

¶7

The District Development Commissioner, Chatra

¶8

The District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra

¶9

The Child Development Project Officer, Chatra

¶10

Mamta Kumari

¶11

…… Respondents

¶12

……..

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶14

…….. For the Petitioner : M/s P.P. Roy, & Deepak Kr. Dubey, Advocates For the Respondent no. 1 to 5 : M/s Antanu Banerjee, G.A. & R.K. Shahi, J.C. to G.A For the Respondent no. 6 : M/s Md. Asghar, &Anuj Burman, Advocates

¶15

05/Dated: 4^th December, 2014

¶16

Petitioner by way of writ petition has challenged the order for following reliefs:

¶17

(a) For, issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/orders(s)/direction(s) particularly in the nature of certiorari quashing the order issued by the District Development Commissioner, Chatra as contained in memo no. 279 dated 19.10.2012, (Annexure-6), whereby and where under the District Development Commissioner, Chatra has pleased to upheld of order of the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, contained in letter no. 448 dated confirming/recommending the removal of the present petitioner from the post of Angan Bari Sewika.

¶18

(b) For, issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/orders(s)/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents for immediately and forthwith reinstate the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Sewika since the date of her termination dated 22.10.2011, in view of the fact that the same has been done in violation of the norms/conditions (specifically clause 16) laid down in letter no. 585 dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Social Welfare Women and Child Development Department,

¶19

-2-

¶20

Government of Jharkhand in this regard, wherein it has been stipulated that the District Social Welfare Officer is having no power, authority and jurisdiction to either show cause or to remove the present petitioner from the post of Angan Bari Sewika.

¶21

(c) For, issuance of an appropriate writ(S)/orders(S)/direction(S) commanding upon the respondents to strictly adhere with the norms as contained in resolution no. 585 dated 02.06.2006, which speaks that in case of any dereliction in duty, the Child Development Project Officer is the only competent authority to take action against an Angan Bari Sewika, that too, with the prior permission of the District Development Commissioner.

¶22

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had been appointed as Angan Bari Sewika vide order dated 05.07.2007 in pursuance to guidelines of Government as contained in memo no. 585 dated 02.06.2006, after being selected by the Aam Sabha. Petitioner had been duly selected as Angan Bari Sewika vide order dated 05.07.2007 and thereafter she started discharging her duty.

¶23

Inspection was conducted on 06.07.2011 at the Centre and it was found that very few numbers of students were available in the Centre. It was also found that the said Centre was running at isolated place and the preparation of daily meal was also not under process. On the basis of these allegations show cause was issued to the petitioner and was asked to reply within three days. Petitioner had given due reply denying the entire allegations but without considering and appreciating her reply, the respondent authority has passed the order dated 22.10.2011, terminating the petitioner from service.

¶24

Petitioner had earlier moved before this Hon’ble Court vide W.P. (S) no. 7036 of 2011 wherein the writ petition was allowed directing the Deputy Development Commissioner to give approval in view of clause 16 of Circular dated 02.06.2006.

¶25

-3-

¶26

The Deputy Development Commissioner has passed the order on 19.10.2012 approving the order of 22.10.2011 against which the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

¶27

The argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in accordance with the government guidelines dated 02.06.2006. There is clause in the said Circular dated 02.06.2006 as contained in clause 16 wherein as per the provision, power of cancellation of selection has been vested with the Child Development Project Officer. The order passed by Child Development Project Officer is required to be approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner being the appellate authority has been vested power to hear the appeal against the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that earlier order dated 22.10.2011 has been passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, who has no jurisdiction to pass the same in view of clause 16 of the guidelines dated 02.06.2006 (Annexure 1 annexed to the writ petition). In view of clause 16, it is specifically mentioned that the Deputy Development Commissioner ought to have approved the order passed by the competent authority i.e. the Child Development Project Officer. Hence, the approval granted by the Deputy Development Commissioner to the order passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, is contrary to the guidelines dated 02.06.2006.

¶29

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the petitioner has already moved this Court challenging the order dated 22.10.2011 vide W.P. (S) no. 7036 of 2011. This court has not interfered the order dated 22.10.2011, however, the writ petition was allowed with direction to the Deputy Development Commissioner to accord approval within thirty days.

¶30

It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the Deputy Development Commissioner has strictly acted in pursuance of order dated 27.08.2012 passed in W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011 wherein the direction was given to the Deputy Development

¶31

-4-

¶32

Commissioner to pass appropriate order with respect to Annexure-5 i.e. impugned order dated 22.10.2011 and accord approval in view of clause 16.

¶33

Heard the parties.

¶34

Petitioner was appointed as Angan Bari Sewika. A Show cause notice was issued to her with respect to commission of irregularity. Petitioner submitted her detailed reply to show cause. The authority i.e. the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, had passed order on 22.10.2011 cancelling the selection of petitioner from Sewika of Angan Bari of the concerned Centre. Petitioner had challenged the order dated 22.10.2011 vide W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011. The same has been disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2012 which is quoted herein below:

¶35

“As per Memo No.327 dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure 3), the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra had inspected Anganbari Centre, Ranchi on 06.07.2011 at 11 A.M. At the time of inspection, only 3-4 children were found present, while refreshment was shown to have been prepared for 40 children on the previous day also. Anganbari Centre was being run in the remote area and even refreshment was not prepared for the day. Petitioner was called to show cause.

¶36

After considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 22.07.2011, vide impugned order dated 22.10.2011, petitioner's services were directed to be discontinued.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while referring to Condition No.16 of Annexure 1, has vehemently argued that services of the petitioner can be discontinued after obtaining the approval from the Deputy Development Commissioner. However, same was not obtained. Although inspection was done by the Deputy Commissioner himself, however, fact remains that for discontinuing the services of Anganbari Sevika, prior approval of Deputy Development Commissioner is sine qua non in view of Condition No.16 of Annexure 1.

¶38

Therefore, present writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to refer the impugned order (Annexure 5) to the Deputy Development Commissioner for his approval. Deputy Development Commissioner shall pass appropriate order thereon within thirty days thereafter.

¶39

It goes without saying that if Deputy Development Commissioner approves, impugned order shall stand valid.

¶40

-5-

¶41

However, if approval is declined, order shall not be given effect to.”

¶42

From perusal of the above order, the impugned order dated 22.10.2011 annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition which was assailed in W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011 is not required to be interfered with. This Court vide the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2012, however allowed the writ petition to the extent for grant of approval by the Deputy Development Officer Which is the requirement in view of clause 16 of the guideline dated 02.06.2006 and in compliance thereof the Deputy Development commissioner has approved, by passing the order dated 19.10.2012.

¶43

With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Social Welfare Officer has got no jurisdiction to cancel the selection of the petitioner and as such the approval granted by the Dy. Development Commissioner is contrary to the guideline dated 02.06.2006, in my view since the petitioner has approached this Court on earlier occasion by preferring W.P.(S). no. 7036 of 2011 in which this Court has not quashed the order dated 22.10.2011 rather the matter had been referred before the Deputy Development Commissioner only for granting approval in terms of clause 16 dated 02.06.2006.The Dy. Development Commissioner has passed the order in compliance to the order dated 27.08.2012 passed in W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011 by granting approval of earlier order dated 22.10.2011. From perusal of this Court’s order dated 27.08.2012 it is evident that the petitioner has not raised the question of jurisdiction of District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra. From the order it is evident that this Court has not touched the jurisdictional part of the authority who has passed the order. So it is not proper for this Court to look this aspect of the matter otherwise, it will amount to reviewing with the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) no. 7036 of 2011.

¶44

In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case considering the serious nature of allegation and the order has been passed by the competent authority, I find no merit in the writ petition.

¶45

Hence it is hereby dismissed.

¶46

-6-

¶47

The order dated 27.08.2012 in W.P. (S) no. 7036 of 2011 may

¶48

be kept on record.

¶49

( Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶50

Tarun

Pushpa Devi v. Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi v. Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivekanand Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand

MD Aslam Vs Home Department

Haradhan Hembrom Vs The Director General of POlice and Ors.

Lallan Prasad Vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Through Its Managing Director And Ors.

Harihar Mahto Vs Human Resource Development

Sanjay Kumar Pandey Vs Police