Dismissed¶26

Mrs Kajal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Sept 2024WPC/910/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Removal of Chairperson and Member of Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights under Rule 7(2)(e), State Commission For Protection of Child Rights Rules 2005; challenge on ground of breach of natural justice and non-supply of enquiry report; petitioners contractual employees; opportunity before enquiry committee held sufficient; reasoned order upheld; both writ petitions dismissed (Jharkhand HC, 18.09.2024).

What did the court decide?

The mere fact that the enquiry report was not given to the petitioners will not have much bearing on their stand, as they had already appeared before the enquiry committee and put forth their stand. ¶23

Mrs Kajal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 910 of 2024

¶3

Mrs. Kajal Yadav, aged about 43 years, wife of Dr. Ravi Kishore, residing at Sai Aastha Apartment, Ratu Road, Post-Ratu, Police Station-Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi … ... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand Officiating from Project Bhawan, Post-Dhurwa, Police Station-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand officiating from Project Bhawan, Post-Dhurwa, Police Station-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi

¶7

… … Respondents

¶8

With

¶9

W.P.(S) No. 916 of 2024

¶10

Sunil Kumar Verma, aged about 42 years, son of late Naresh Verma, resident of Hirapur, Chiragora, Post-Hirapur, Police Station-Hirapur, District-Dhanbad … ... Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand

¶13

The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand officiating from Project Bhawan, Post-Dhurwa, Police Station-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand officiating from Project Bhawan, Post-Dhurwa, Police Station-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi

¶14

… … Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate [in both cases] For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I --------

¶17

Order No. 8 /Dated: 18^th September 2024

¶18

Both these writ applications arise out of the common order as contained in Memo No.406 dated 12.02.2024 issued by the Principal, Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Jharkhand, Ranchi; whereby the petitioner, namely, Mrs. Kajal Yadav in

¶19

¶20

W.P.(S) No. 910 of 2024 and the petitioner, namely, Sunil Kumar Verma in W.P.(S) No. 916 of 2024 have been removed from the post of Chairperson and Member of the Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Ranchi respectively with immediate effect in pursuance to Rule 7(2)(e) of the Rules of State Commission For Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2005.

¶21

2. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these writ applications submits that though the petitioners were contractual employees, however, the principle of natural justice has not been followed, inasmuch as, the committee which was set up to enquire into the matter has not taken note of the stand of these petitioners. Further the enquiry report has not been given to these petitioners so as to defend their case as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

¶22

3. Mr. Rohit, learned AC to AAG-I submits that the petitioners were contractual employees. He submits that in order to comply the principle of natural justice with regard to the allegation made against these petitioners, a committee was constituted of several members and that committee has given proper opportunity to these petitioners to appear before the enquiry officer and submit their stand and thereafter the impugned order has been passed taking into consideration the report of the committee. As such, no illegality has been committed by the respondentauthorities.

¶23

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the committee was constituted to look into the allegations made against these petitioners and that committee has called these petitioners and they have also appeared before it and put forth their stand. Only due to the fact, that the enquiry report was not given to these petitioners will not have much bearing in the stand of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the impugned order is a well-reasoned order coupled with the fact that the petitioners are

¶24

¶25

contractual employees and the petitioners were given due opportunity before the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has given the report taking into consideration the stand of the petitioners and the competent authority who passed the impugned order has taken note of all these facts and passed a reasoned order.

¶26

5. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the common impugned order in both these writ applications. Accordingly, both these writ applications stand dismissed.

¶27

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶28

Amit

¶29

AFR/NAFR

¶30

Mrs Kajal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kajal Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marufa Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukendar Kumar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary/ Pr Secretary Deptt of Forest Environment and Climate

Manoj Tirkey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gaya Lal Hembram Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of School Education and Literacy

Sunil Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhim Bauri Vs Chief Manager Cum Managing Director