Quashed

Lalita Oraon v. Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Jharkhand HC9 Jul 2019WPC/4554/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed a disciplinary order issued by the Child Development Project Officer against a Sevika and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner, reserving the right to initiate fresh proceedings after due legal procedures.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of letter no. 85 dated 15.05.2016; petitioner directed to be reinstated.

Lalita Oraon Vs Social Welfare Women And Child… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 4554 OF 2016

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Lalita Oraon

¶6

V E R S U S … ... Respondents

¶7

The State of Jharkhand and others

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. H. K. Gupta, SC-V

¶10

08/09.07.2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for setting aside letter bearing no. 85, dated 15.05.2016, issued under signature of Child Development Project Officer, Bhandra, whereby and whereunder she has been restrained from discharging her duties as Sevika of Nawdiha Anganbari Kendra and has further been directed to hand over the charge to the Sahaika. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to release consequential benefits.

¶12

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 15.05.2016 is without jurisdiction. The C.D.P.O. has no authority to pass an order relying upon the communication order of District Social Welfare Officer. Learned counsel further submits that the Deputy Development Commissioner is the competent authority to recommend for removal from service and on his recommendations only, the order would have been passed by the C.D.P.O.. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court passed in the case of Saraswati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2016(3) JLJR 146 .

¶13

Learned counsel further submits that the issues involved in the instant writ petition is no more integra. The issue has already been decided by this Court on 31.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 4556 of 2016 in the case of Shanti Devi and as such this case may also be disposed of in terms thereof after setting aside letter bearing no. 85, dated 15.05.2016, issued under signature of Child Development Project Officer, Bhandra.

¶14

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter was enquired by the Deputy Commissioner himself and there is no illegality in the impugned order. Petitioner was in the habit of absenting herself from duty and as such she has rightly been removed on the ground of dereliction of duty. Learned counsel however does not dispute the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this case may be disposed of in view of order passed in the case of Shanti Devi in W.P.(S) No. 4556 of 2016.

¶17

In view of fair submission of learned counsel for the parties it appears that this writ petition is covered by order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4556 of 2016 and as such it is also being disposed of in terms thereof.

¶18

As a cumulative effect of the aforementioned facts, the order issued under letter bearing no. 85, dated 15.05.2016, issued under signature of Child Development Project Officer, Bhandra is hereby quashed. As a result of quashment of order, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner from the date of passing of the order restraining the petitioner from discharging her duties. However, it is open for the respondents to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner after following the due procedures of law and after giving her ample opportunity of hearing and pass any order in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶19

It is made clear that petitioner shall participate and cooperate the respondents in proceeding.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

Lalita Oraon v. Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Oraon 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

Rati Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mahendra Prasad Sharma Vs Panchaitee Raj

Kauleshwari Charan Ram Vs Food Corporation Of India Through Its Chairman And Ors.

Mosamat Ful Devi Vs Education

Kumari Ranju Vs Education

Benedict Aind Vs the State of Jharkhand