Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
R.M. BORDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ.
Lata Mohanlal Gandhi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Women & Child Development Department & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1560 of 2015
Decided On : 09-06-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.P. Brahme, Advocate.
For the Respondents: S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P.
Adherence to principles of natural justice and the prescribed inquiry procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules is crucial in conducting inquiries and terminating appointments.
Headnote:
Child Welfare Committee - Termination of Appointment - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Rule 92 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 29(4) of the Act and Rule 92 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, and emphasized the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice in conducting inquiries and terminating appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, challenged the termination of her appointment, alleging breach of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with the inquiry procedure as per the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry conducted did not adhere to principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules. It directed the State Government to conduct an appropriate inquiry and take a decision in adherence to the provisions of the Act and Rules.
Issues: Breach of principles of natural justice, non-compliance with inquiry procedure, and termination of appointment under the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice and the prescribed inquiry procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules in conducting inquiries and terminating appointments.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the State Government for reconsideration, directing the State Government to conduct an appropriate inquiry and take a decision in adherence to the provisions of the Act and Rules. It also directed that the petitioner shall not be reinstated as Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee until completion of the inquiry and subject to the result thereof.
R.M. Borde, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Member of the Child Welfare Committee, Ahmednagar, during the period 2008 to 2011. Her tenure was extended up to April 2015. Since performance of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory, she came to be appointed as Chairperson during the next tenure i.e. for the period till April 2016. There were two members of the Committee. One Dr. Rajendra Pawar and another Mr. Preetam Bedarkar came to be appointed as Members of the Committee along with the petitioner.
3. The petitioner contends that she performed her duties honestly and to the best of her ability. She received a communication dated 30.01.2014 issued by Respondent No.5 directing her to remain present for a meeting which was convened on 31.01.2014. It is the contention of the petitioner that she caused appearance before the Assistant Commissioner, Pune on 31.01.2014 and thereupon she learnt that an inquiry has been proposed against her. An application was tendered by the petitioner on the same day requesting to supply copies of the documents mentioned in the communication dated 30.01.2014. The petitioner contends that in spite of issuing reminders for supply of documents, she was not supplied with copies of complaints and as such was unaware of nature of the allegations levelled against her. It is the contention of the petitioner that she was not informed about dates prescribed by the Inquiry Committee for inquiring into the allegations levelled against her nor she was supplied with the relevant documents demanded by her. The petitioner, as such, contends that the procedure of inquiry adopted is in breach of principles of natural justice.
4. The petitioner also contends that inquiry has not been conducted by the Selection Committee as contemplated by Rule 92 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The petitioner, thus, contends that since there was no proper inquiry as contemplated under the Rules, the final action taken by the State Government directing termination of her appointment as Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, Ahmednagar, by virtue of issuance of communication dated 18.11.2014, is bad in law. The petitioner contends that the action of termination is in breach of provisions of Section 29(4) of the Act and Rule 92 of the Rules of 2007. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment in the matter of Smt. RenukaVishnu Ghule Vs. State of Maharashtra, (Writ Petition No.2400 of 2014, decided on 14th October, 2014), to support her contentions and requests to quash the order of termination issued by the State Government.
5. An affidavit-in-reply has been presented by the District Women and Child Development Officer, Ahmednagar, on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 4. According to the contesting Respondents, notification issued by the State directing termination of appointment of petitioner as Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee is in observance of the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. It is the contention of the Respondents that the State of Maharashtra has framed Rules in exercise of powers under Section 68 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and those Rules are published in the Official Gazette on 05.09.2002 and amended Rules have been published on 13.01.2011. It is the contention of the Respondents that in view of Rule 11(4) of the Rules of 2011, the State Advisory Board is invested with the powers to hold inquiry in respect of the cases falling under Section 29(4) of the Act of 2000. It is the contention of the Respondents that the State Advisory Committee has inquired into the matter and concluded that the petitioner is guilty of exercise of powers vested in her and as such, recommended action of termination of the petitioner.
6. It is the contention of the Respondents that there were several complaints re
