SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH, JJ.
Kajal Yadav, W/o Dr. Ravi Kishore - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 16 of 2025
Decided On : 01-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV

Removal from office without providing inquiry report violates principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 - Section 7(2)(e) - Removal from office - Principles of natural justice - Notification for removal of the appellant from the post of Chairperson quashed due to lack of proper inquiry and failure to provide the inquiry report, violating natural justice principles. (Paras 6, 10)

(B) Administrative Law - Right to be heard - The court emphasized the necessity of providing opportunity for representation before making decisions that carry stigma against an individual's reputation. Findings that the learned Single Judge erred in concluding the appellant was given adequate opportunity. (Paras 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as Chairperson, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights as per Memo No. 2666 dated 28-11-2022. Allegations led to an inquiry, followed by removal without serving the inquiry report or providing adequate opportunity for defense.

Findings of Court:
The court found unnecessary procedural irregularities in the removal process, concluding that the absence of a supplied inquiry report denied the appellant a fair hearing as mandated by law.

Issues: Whether the appellant was adequately provided an opportunity to defend against allegations prior to removal and whether the inquiry report was required to be shared.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the removal was stigmatic and necessitated full compliance with natural justice, including the obligation to supply inquiry findings for proper defense.

Result: Appeal allowed; notification quashed and remanded for fresh proceedings.

Table of Content
1. factual basis for removal from office. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding violation of natural justice. (Para 4 , 5)
3. removal process must adhere to natural justice. (Para 6 , 7 , 10)
4. stigmatic removal necessitates hearing. (Para 8 , 9)
5. setting aside of the previous order and remand for new decision. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-09-24 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) no. 910 of 2024 whereby and whereunder, the prayer for quashing of the notification as contained in Memo No. 406 dated 12-02-2024, by which the writ petitioner/appellant has been removed from the post of Chairperson, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights with immediate effect, has been rejected.

3. The factual aspects of the case as could be gathered from the averments made in the writ application is that a notice dated 14-07-2021 was published in the JAP-IT Recruitment Portal inviting applications for appointment to the vacant post of Chairperson and Members of Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights in the State of Jharkhand. The writ petitioner, being qualified, had applied for the post of Chairperson, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights and being successful, he was appointed vide notification as contained in Memo No. 2666 dated 28-11-2022. The writ petitioner had accordingly given his joining on 16-12- 2022 and started discharging his duty. The writ petitioner was issued a show cause by letter as contained in Memo No. 2332 dated 18-08-2023 and was directed to file a show cause reply within two weeks. A show cause reply was submitted by the writ petitioner on 08-09-2023 denying the allegations levelled against him. To enquire into the allegations levelled against the writ petitioner, a four-member committee was constituted by order as contained in Memo No. 3102 dated 12-12-2023 and the writ petitioner was directed to appear before the committee on 21-12- 2023. A detailed show cause was also filed after which vide notification as contained in Memo No. 406 dated 12-02-2024, the writ petitioner was removed from the post of Member, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights with immediate effect in pursuance of Section 7 (2)(e) of the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act , 2005. This notification was under challenge in W.P.(S) No. 916 of 2024 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18-09-2024 which is the order impugned to the present appeal.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the copy of the Enquiry Report dated 27-12-2013 was never served upon the writ petitioner which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The writ petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and the witnesses.

5. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV has submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to defend his case and after considering the show cause submitted by him the order of removal of the writ petitioner from the post of Chairperson, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights was passed. The learned Single Judge has correctly come to a conclusion that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. The impugned notification to the writ application as contained in Memo No. 406 dated 12-02-2024 has taken recourse to Section 7 (2)(e) of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, while removing the writ petitioner from the post of Member, Jharkhand State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 reads as under:

“7.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top