Dismissed¶¶21

Gaitri Devi v. Welfare

Jharkhand HC21 Aug 2024WPC/3041/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganbari Sahayika reinstatement denied; absence without sanctioned leave; dereliction of duty; unsatisfactory show-cause; impugned order dated 28.01.2015 (Annexure-9) by CDPO (Rural), Chatra; earlier quashing of termination dated 10.09.2010 in W.P.(S) No. 2254 of 2012; successor worker Punam Devi on post for seven years; no fresh ground for quashing; writ petition W.P.(S) No. 3041 of 2016 dismissed by Justice Ambuj Nath, High Court of Jharkhand, on 21.08.2024.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was dismissed from service because she was found absent from the Anganbari Centre, Khap without any sanctioned leave, and was found guilty of dereliction of duty. ¶¶20

Gaitri Devi Vs Welfare — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3041 of 2016

¶2

Gaitri Devi, wife of Sri Chamari Thakur, Resident of village- Khap, P.O. + P.S.- Hafua, District – Chatra.

¶3

The State of Jharkhand through Welfare Department, Project Building, P.O. + P.S.- Dhurwa, District – Ranchi.

¶4

The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District – Chatra.

¶5

The District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, P.O. + P.S. and DistrictChatra.

¶6

The Child Development Project Officer (Rural), Chatra, P.O. and P.S.Chatra, District – Chatra.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to S.C.-V

¶12

07/21.08.2024

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order dated 28.01.2015 (Annexure-9) passed by respondent No.4 the Child Development Project Officer (Rural), Chatra, whereby and wherein, the respondent No.3 the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra has dismissed the representation of the petitioner filed for re-reinstatement of her service as Anganbari Sahayika.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sahayika in village- Khap on 25.08.1996. After meeting of the Aam Sabha according to the guidelines of the State Government, she was given proper training from 04.10.2001 to 07.10.2001. The petitioner remained in service up to the month of June, 2010. On 09.07.2010 at 10:00 A.M., inspection was made by the Supervisor Smt. Jyotika Toppo and the Anganbari was found to be closed. Show-cause was issued to the petitioner and subsequently, she was terminated from the service of Anganbari Sahayika.

¶16

-2-

¶17

Being aggrieved by the order of termination, petitioner preferred a Writ application being W.P.(S) No.2254 of 2012. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2014 quashed the order of termination dated 10.09.2010 and directed the respondent No.4 the Child Development Project Officer (Rural), Chatra to pass an appropriate decision on the representation filed by the petitioner within three weeks and thereafter, communicate the same to the petitioner within two weeks.

¶18

The respondent No.4 the Child Development Project Officer (Rural), Chatra rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that her show-cause was not found to be satisfactory.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that another person Punam Devi is working as Anganbari Sahayika since last seven years, i.e. on the post from which the petitioner was terminated.

¶20

Petitioner was dismissed from service because she was found absent from the Anganbari Centre, Khap without any sanctioned leave. The petitioner had filed a representation before the respondent No.4 the Child Development Project Officer (Rural), Chatra and as per the direction given in W.P.(S) No.2254 of 2012, the respondent No.4 the Child Development Project Officer (Rural), Chatra passed an order dismissing the representation of the petitioner finding the show-cause to be unsatisfactory. The petitioner was found guilty of dereliction of duty. She has not made out any fresh ground for quashing of the termination order. Another person is working on the said post since last seven years.

¶21

Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.

¶22

Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶23

(Ambuj Nath, J.)

¶24

Jay/-

Gaitri Devi v. Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaitri Devi v. Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar Banerjee Alias Bikash Kumar Banerjee Vs Bank of India through Its Chairman

Deo Kumar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raghubansh Mani Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary /Pr Secretary Higher Abnd Technical Education Deptt

Sukar Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sharma Mehtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Birendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand