The impugned orders were quashed due to being cryptic, capacious, and non-speaking, not providing reasons for dismissal/termination, and being issued by an unauthorized authority. The court emphasized that the punishment for the offense was considered very harsh and that reasons for dismissal/termination cannot be supplemented by way of counter-affidavit.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.591 dated 27.09.2013 issued by respondent No.4, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been removed from the services. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 19.09.2013 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhanbad. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Anganwari Sevika after following the procedures of law at Kudamu Anganwari Centre, Tantri Panchayat, Topchanchi, Dhanbad. Thereafter, she started functioning as Anganwari Sevika for the said Centre to the satisfaction of the respondents. However, the respondent No.4 vide Memo No.388 dated 05.08.2013 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why she was absent from the duties during the inspection on 01.08.2013 and also mentioned that some irregularities has also been found in her Anganwari Centre. Accordingly, petitioner filed her reply, but the same was not found satisfactory. On 31.08.2013, the petitioner was again found absent when inspection was made by the Child Development Project Officer, Topchanchi and as such, the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled vide impugned Letter No.1105 dated 19.09.2013 and communicated to the petitioner by respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 27.09.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for consideration of her case, but no consideration was shown by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

3. Mr. Suraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned orders on the ground that for absence of only two days, the petitioner has been dismissed/terminated from services and even the enquiry was done behind the back of the petitioner and also the reply of the petitioner was not considered in right perspective. He further submits that impugned orders are cryptic, capacious and non-speaking order and as such, are not tenable in the eyes of law. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned orders and neither the allegations levelled against the petitioner has been mentioned in the impugned orders, but the reasons have been assigned in the counter-affidavit. Even the enquiry report has been annexed in the counter-affidavit. He further submits that the respondents were aware of the fact that a writ petition has been filed, challenging the order of dismissal, but they were in hurry and have appointed another person, namely Meena Devi, without waiting for the result of the writ petition, which is apparent from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and as such, appointment of Meena Devi is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Ms. Divya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that several irregularity and illegality has been found in the said Centre and on inspection petitioner was found absent from duties and thereafter, the respondents have rightly dismissed the petitioner from services. The Anganbari Centre was not being opened on time nor functioning regularly in a proper manner. Even appeal has not been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order in proper format as a representation has been filed by the petitioner, which cannot be said to be appeal in the eyes of law. Hence, the respondents after following the procedures, have appointed another person in place of petitioner, who is working in the said Anganwari Centre and even, petitioner has not impleaded her as a party respondent. She further submits that though no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order, but the same has been mentioned