Dismissed¶19

Prativa Devi v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC9 Jan 2024WPC/6429/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination of Anganbari Sewika (Garhwa) challenged in writ petition — dismissed. Petitioner admitted before the Enquiry Officer to withdrawing amounts by making false signatures; plea of debt/financial crunch rejected. Court held: Anganbari Sewika must maintain integrity; dishonest persons cannot continue as Anganbari Sewika; termination dated 18.10.2012 by Child Development Program Officer on District Social Welfare Officer's direction (Annexure-4) fully justified; no interference warranted. Keywords: admission of guilt, false signature, integrity, termination, Garhwa, Jharkhand.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's plea of debt/financial crunch is not accepted; as an Anganbari Sewika she was supposed to maintain integrity towards her duties, and dishonest persons cannot be allowed to continue as Anganbari Sewika. ¶15

Prativa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 6429 of 2014

Prativa Devi

……… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa

¶8

Child Development Program Officer, Garhwa. 4. District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa. 5. Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwa.

¶9

……… Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

For the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Surubhi Rani, AC to SC-II ----------

¶12

46/ 09.01.2024 Heard the parties.

¶13

2. Petitioner has assailed the order of termination dated 18.10.2012 issued by respondent No. 3 whereby on the direction of District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa vide its letter dated 12.10.2012, the petitioner has been terminated from the services.

¶14

3. From perusal of Annexure-4 it transpires that several allegations were levelled against the petitioner which were grave in nature. Further from perusal of Annexure-4 it appears that petitioner has accepted all the charges levelled against her. The plea taken by the petitioner was that as petitioner was in debt, by making false signature she has withdrawn the amount. The plea has been taken for forgiving her as she was facing financial crunch at the relevant time.

¶15

4. This plea of the petitioner is not accepted and being an Anganbari Sewika the petitioner was supposed to maintain integrity towards her duties and dishonest persons cannot be allowed to continue as Anganbari Sewika. Since guilt has already been admitted by the petitioner, the order of termination is fully justified.

¶16

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State very fairly submits that before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has accepted her guilt and it has been found that she has indulged herself in withdrawing the amount by making false signature. This type of Anganbari Sewika cannot be allowed to

¶17

¶18

continue in service.

¶19

6. In view of fair submissions of learned counsel for the respondent-State and in view of admission of guilt by the petitioner, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶20

Kunal/

Prativa Devi v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prativa Devi v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

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

Urmila Devi Vs Rural Works Department

Dileshwar Ram Vs Agriculture and Sugar Cane Development

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Department of Home

Bhuwan Bhaskar Vs Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences through Its Director

Nilima Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bir Bahadur Singh Vs Road Construction