Meena Kumari v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6044 of 2014 Meena Kumari Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar … Petitioner 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar 4. The District Social Walefare Officer, Deoghar 5. The Child Development Programming Officer (CDPO), Deoghar 6. The Block Development Officer, Deoghar .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK ------ For Petitioner For Respondent-State
Legal Reasoning
Aaganbari Centre is situated. It is well settled law that any appointment dehors the Rules, is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, the termination order is fully justified. However, the respondents have taken a plea in the counter- affidavit that remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner is available to the petitioner. The petitioner may prefer an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Deoghar and if an appeal is preferred, within a period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, D.C., Deoghar shall consider the same and after giving ample opportunity of hearing, and enquiring the matter afresh, pass a reasoned order, within a further period of six weeks’. 6. With the aforesaid observation and directions, instant writ petition
Arguments
----- : XX : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV --- 08/11.01.2023 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order /letter dated 23.09.2014 issued by the Deputy Development commissioner, by which, the petitioner has been removed from the services from the post of Aaganbari Sahaika from Aaganbari Centre No.42, Saket Bihar, Deoghar. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the said post. 2. The specific case of the petitioner as has been averred in the writ petition is that she was appointed as Aaganbari Sahaika at Aaganbari Centre, Saket Bihar (Barmasia), Deoghar Ward No.10 vide Memo No. 125 dated 05.04.2005 by CDPO on the basis of decision taken by Aam Sabha. After her appointment, she was working to the satisfaction of the respondents and there was no complaint against her by any guardian of children and higher authorities. However, on 04.07.2013, CDPO, Deoghar directed the petitioner to produce her appointment letter along with her residential certificate on 08.07.2013. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner appeared and produced all the documents, but the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar issue a letter vide Memo No.489 dated 23.09.2013 asking show cause from the petitioner regarding her residential status. Therefore, the petitioner filed a detailed reply stating all the facts and annexing all relevant documents on 27.09.2013. However, the Deputy 2 Development Commissioner, Deoghar again issued a show cause notice to the petitioner vide Memo No. 637 dated 18.12.2013 to explain about genuineness of her residential certificate as same appears to be forged one and directed to submit her reply by 24.12.2013. The petitioner replied the same, but the respondent No.3 did not found the reply of the petitioner satisfactory and vide Memo No. 1000 dated 23.09.2014, removed the petitioner from the post of Aaganbari Sahaika at Aaganbari Centre No.42 Saket Bihar, Deoghar with immediate effect without verifying the residential proof of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. The petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that petitioner resides in her own home at Saket Bihar Colony Deoghar with her family from beginning of her appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sahaika at Aaganbari Centre No.42, Saket Bihar, Deoghar. It is specific stand of the petitioner that on the basis of fake allegation levelled against the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 removed the petitioner illegally. One Chandan Singh, S/o Sri Arjun Singh has filed an application before the concerned authorities, levelling forged and fabricated allegation against the petitioner and the said Chandan Singh is none else, but neighbor of the petitioner and series of litigation is going on in between the parties, therefore, intentionally complaint was made by said Chandan Singh and on the basis of said complaint, the order of termination has been issued, which is baseless and not tenable in the eyes of law. 4. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that appointment has been obtained by the petitioner on the basis of forged documents. He further submits that impugned order has been passed on the basis of enquiry report of concerned CDPO to the specific complaint made in writing by one Chandan Singh, resident of Saket Vihar, where the concerned Anganbari Centre is running and located. He further submits that after enquiry, it was found that petitioner is not a resident of Poshak Chhetra of Saket Vihar rather she is the resident of Kumudani Ghosh road, Nandan Pahar and since appointment of the petitioner is based on fake certificate and there is a clear cut violation of departmental Circular/Letter. The petitioner is guilty for material suppression of facts from the respondents and as such, after issuance of second show cause notice, the petitioner has been removed from services. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He also submits that there is an alternative 3 remedy before the Deputy Commissioner, who is Appellate Authority for filing an appeal against the order of Deputy Development Commissioner but without availing the said remedy the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court directly and as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score itself. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the documents brought on records and averments made in the writ petition and counter-affidavit and also argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that admittedly, the petitioner had obtained employment on the basis of forged residential certificate, which was not as per the Rules and Regulation for appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sahaikiya. Further, it has been specifically stipulated in the appointment letter, which is at page 15 (Annexure-2) that if the documents produced by the petitioner is found to be not as per the terms and conditions, the appointment may be cancelled and as such, the respondent No.3 has rightly removed the petitioner from services. On enquiry by the respondents, it was found that petitioner was not resident of Poshak Chhetra of Saket Vihar rather she is a resident of Kumudani Ghosh road, Nandan Pahar. It was only after the appointment, she was claiming herself to be resident of said place, where the Aaganbari Centre is running. As per the terms and conditions, the Aaganbari Sahaikiya has to be resident of that area/mohalla/tola, where the
Decision
stands disposed of. /punit/ (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)