Allowed

Babita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Oct 2021WPC/2629/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed orders stopping the petitioner from working as a Sahiya Sathi due to lack of a departmental enquiry and issuance of a termination order. The Court held that depriving employee livelihood without following natural justice and departmental procedure is arbitrary and violates Article 14.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letters were quashed. Petitioner reinstated as Sahiya Sathi forthwith with entitlement to honorarium from the date she was stopped.

Babita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 2629 of 2018

¶4

Babita Devi

¶5

…. …. Petitioner

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶8

The Director, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Committee, Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.

¶10

The Civil Surgeon, Deoghar.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Sonaraithari, Deoghar.

¶12

The Charge Medical Officer, Health Centre, Sarwan, Deoghar.

¶13

Shri Brahamdev Verma,

¶14

B.T.T. Community Health Centre Sarwan, Deoghar.

¶15

…. …. Respondents

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, AAG-I Mr. Awanish Shankar, AC to AAG-I

¶19

¶20

11 / 18.10.2021 Heard the parties.

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 457 dated 11.4.2018 (Annexure-10), whereby, the In-charge Medical Officer, Sarwan, Deoghar, has intimated the petitioner not to work on her post Sahiya Sathi on humanitarian ground in the light of letter contained in Memo No. 255 dated 8.3.2018 issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Jharkhand. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 5.7.2017, by which, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer directed the In-charge Medical Officer to hold a meeting and select Sahiya Sathi in place of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on her post of Sahiya Sathi and also pay arrear of honorarium.

¶22

The case of the petitioner lies in a short compass. The petitioner was initially appointed on 16.6.2007 as Sahiya ( Didi ). In December, 2010, she was appointed as Sahiya Sathi, Cluster-Chandana,

¶23

¶24

Sarwan and continued to work on the said post. It is the case of the petitioner that she had written an application to the In-charge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Sarwan on 26.12.2016 for maternity leave for two months. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 4.1.2017 to the petitioner stating that during course of enquiry, she was found absent unauthorisedly from the work place. The petitioner replied the same on 10.2.2017 annexing medical report that she was under treatment from 3.1.2017 to 5.1.2017. Thereafter, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar wrote a letter dated 5.7.2017 to the Medical Officer, Sarwan to hold a meeting and select a Sahiya in place of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that the Treasury Officer as well as the Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Jharkhand, Ranchi made requests to the concerned authority for allowing the petitioner to resume her duty, but no heed was paid to the direction of the Authorities nor any order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner. The respondents have stopped the petitioner from working and also honorarium is not being paid and hence, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court.

¶25

Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been illegally ousted from her duty. She has been stopped by the respondents without following the due procedure of law. Learned counsel submits that even honorarium has not been paid to her. She was absent from duty as she was on family way and she had also applied for maternity leave, but the same was illegally not entertained. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for the maternity leave, which is her accrued right in view of the rules and regulations of the State Government. Learned counsel further submits that without the respondents have stopped the petitioner from continuing as Sahiya Sathi, without initiation of any departmental proceeding. No charge has ever been framed. No termination order has been brought on record to show that the petitioner has been terminated from service and without issuance of any formal order, the petitioner has been stopped from continuing on the post and also no honorarium / incentive has been paid. Learned counsel further argues that surprisingly on 25.6.2021, the petitioner has been sent for skill training by the respondents, that too

¶26

¶27

without any payment. Therefore, learned counsel submits that a direction be given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume her duty as Sahiya Sathi and to pay the honorarium as well as incentive from the date she has been stopped to work and also the arrears of honorarium.

¶28

Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned Addl. Advocate General-I, representing the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that rightly the petitioner has been stopped from working as Sahiya Sathi, as she was found absent from duty for last one year without any application to the competent authority. Even the leave application, which has been brought on record, is a fabricated document, as the petitioner had never written any application for leave. Learned Addl. Advocate General further argues that on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, the petitioner has approached this Court. The approach is malice and she is trying to get relief on humanitarian ground from this Court. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that a person, who has remained absent for more than a year, cannot be allowed to continue on work, which amounts to misconduct and hence, the petitioner was rightly stopped to work and no honorarium was paid. Learned Addl. Advocate General draws the attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner was not sent for training and the petitioner on her own participated in the training and put her attendance and when on enquiry, it was found that a declared inactive Sahiya (petitioner) had participated in the training programme, her attendance was immediately struck off, and as such, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. Justifying the stand of the respondents, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that no interference is required to be warranted in the writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed in limne .

¶29

Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties across the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. It is a glaring example where the respondent State has snatched the livelihood of an employee without following the procedure of law. The law is well-settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of

¶30

¶31

Article 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or orders effecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. It is not expected from the State Authority to pass the order dehors the Rules and they must be aware about the Rules while passing the order or direction. The order regarding termination has not been brought on record in spite of repeated orders passed by this Court. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic enquiry conducted complying with the principles of natural justice.

¶32

The contention of the learned counsel for the State justifying the impugned order, whereby the petitioner was stopped to work, is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that till date, no departmental enquiry has ever been initiated. Even no charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the State that unauthorised absence from duty amounts to misconduct in service jurisprudence, is not accepted by this Court. Even if it is a case of unauthorised absence from duty which necessitated to termination of service of the petitioner, the minimum requirement complying the principles of natural justice must be followed.

¶33

In this case, admittedly no opportunity was given to the petitioner and no enquiry was held. The petitioner's plea was that despite her willingness to resume her duty, she was prevented to report to duty. From bare perusal of Annexures-9, 10 and 13 of the writ petition, it appear that higher officials were aware of the fact that the petitioner was on leave and she has been stopped to work and therefore, the higher officials directed the In-charge Medical Officer, Sarwan, Deoghar to allow the petitioner to resume her duty, but the same was not taken care of without any valid reason while passing the impugned order.

¶34

¶35

As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, and legal propositions, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned letter contained in Memo No. 457 dated 11.4.2018 (Annexure-10) and letter dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure-4) and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on her duty as Sahiya Sathi forthwith. The petitioner is also entitled for honorarium from the date she has been stopped to work. The entire payment shall be made to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶36

However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate a departmental proceeding in accordance with law, if at all, it is required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶37

This writ petition stands allowed.

¶38

R.Kr.

Babita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrit Prasad Kushwaha Alias Amrit Prasad Kushavaha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nandani Kumari Alias Puja Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary

Manga Kachhap Vs Union of India Department of Home through Principal Secretary

John Horo Vs the State of Jharkhand through Pr Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Suresh Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy

Samiruddin Ansari Vs the Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director