Allowed

Smt Sheela Devi v. Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Jharkhand HC2 Jul 2019WPC/7416/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an order terminating the petitioner's appointment as Aganbari Sewika for lack of jurisdiction, directing reinstatement but allowing fresh proceedings after due hearing within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Memo No.193 dated 22.09.2017; Direction for reinstatement of the petitioner; Leave to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings within six weeks.

Smt Sheela Devi Vs Social Welfare Women And Child… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No.7416 of 2017

¶3

Smt. Sheela Devi. … …Petitioner -VersusThe State of Jharkhand & Ors. … …Respondents -------------

¶4

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶5

For the Petitioners :Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Devashish Mandal, A.C. to Sr. S.C. III.

¶6

¶7

09/ 02.07.2019 The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the letter issued vide memo No.193 dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure-2) whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner as Aganbari Sewika has been set aside and the petitioner has been directed to hand over the charge of Aganbari Centre to the Sahaika.

¶8

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Aganbari Sewika for Aganbari Centre situated at Bechtola, Bhandra in the district of Lohardaga and the appointment letter to that effect was issued to her vide letter bearing No.148 dated 15.10.2007 under the signature of Child Development Project Officer, Bhandra. On being appointed as Aganbari Sewika, the petitioner was discharging her duties to the full satisfaction of respondent-authorities and there was no complaint received from any corner. All of a sudden, the petitioner was issued letter contained in memo No.193 dated 22.09.2017, by which her appointment as Aganbari Sewika was terminated and hence the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of her grievance.

¶9

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 22.09.2017 is without jurisdiction. The C.D.P.O. has no authority to pass an order relying on the communication order of District Social Welfare Officer. Learned Counsel further submits that the Deputy Development Commissioner is a competent authority to recommend for removal of the service and on his recommendation only, the order should have been passed by the C.D.P.O. In order to buttress his argument, learned

¶10

¶11

Counsel relies upon a decision of this Hon’ble Court passed in case of Sarswati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2016(3) JLJR 146.

¶12

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Devashish Mandal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that matter has been enquired by the Deputy Commissioner himself and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner was in habit of absenting herself from duty and as such, she was rightly removed as she has been charged for dereliction of duty. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶13

Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that as the order itself was without jurisdiction, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶14

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules and guidelines, I hereby quash the order as contained in memo No.193 dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure2). As a result of quashment of order, I direct the respondents 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 pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

It is made clear that the petitioner shall participate in proceeding and co-operate with the respondents.

¶16

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

¶17

[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J.]

¶18

P.K.S.

Smt Sheela Devi v. Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sheela 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Bilash Prasad Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sabita Banerjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sangita Kacchap Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human Resources Development Department

Sanjay Yadav Vs Health

MD Ainul Ali Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Human Resources Development Department

Khajo Miyan Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through General Manager Mp And R And Ors.