Pramath Patnaik, J.

1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of order as contained in Memo no.679 dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of respondent no.5 by which the petitioner has been informed that in pursuance of letter no.905 dated 04.12.2006 of respondent no.4, the petitioner has been dismissed from services by respondent no.3.

2. The factual matrix sans details, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was selected on the post of Sahaika (Assistant) by a duly constituted Selection Committee meeting held on 09.06.2004 in pursuance to the order passed by respondent no.5. Consequent upon the said selection, the petitioner has been posted as Sahaika at Aanganbari Centre Basidih-I vide order dated 11.09.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ application). After coming to know the irregularities committed by one Sewika Latika Kumari, the petitioner filed an application on 10.11.2006 to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (respondent no.2) and requested for doing the needful in the matter as depicted in Annexure-2 to the writ application. The aforesaid fact was also flashed in local daily ‘Hazaribagh Jagaran’ dated 11.11.2006, regarding the fact that the complaint was made to the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner with respect to the irregularity committed by the Sewika in purchasing and distributing the fooding of children of Aaganbari. The said newspaper cutting dated 11.11.2006 has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. The allegation of the petitioner has been duly supported by the villagers of Basadih, Churchu Block, Hazaribagh by application dated 01.12.2006, where in application to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (respondent no.2) the allegations made by the said Sewika with respect to snatching of money by the petitioner was false, but, the villagers have pointed out the illegality committed by the Sewika, as per annexure-4 to the writ application. To the utter surprise and consternation, the respondent no.5 issued Memo no.679 dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure-5), informing the petitioner that her selection has been cancelled by respondent no.3, in view of the letter no.905 dated 04.12.2006 of District Program Officer (respondent no.4).

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of termination, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for mitigating her grievance.

3. Heard Mr. Rohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Jalisur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that before issuance of impugned order (Annexure-5) neither any enquiry was held nor any notice of show cause was issued upon the petitioner nor any ground of reason has been assigned therein, rendering it illegal being infraction of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel has further submitted that from the impugned order (Annexure-5), it appears that the respondents in order to penalize the petitioner has issued the impugned order, which is a cryptic and non speaking order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondents are duty bound to issue notice of show cause and ought to have afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the order of punishment and the respondents have no authority under the law to cancel the selection of the petitioner without complying the principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit repelling the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been disclosed that the petitioner was selected as Sahaika in the general meeting dated 09.06.2004 and was deputed in Basadih-I, Centre of Aaganbari Project on the terms and conditions as enumerated in Memo no.174 dated 11.09.2004 (as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit).