1 2025:CGHC:37978 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4215 of 2018  Savita Sao D/o Rupdhar Prasad Sao Aged About 32 Years R/o Face - 2 Near Kelovihar Chakardhar Nagar Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Collector Raigarh Cum President Child Protection Committee Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. The President , Vigilance Committee Shri Chhakardhar Bal Sadan Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. The District Coordinate Office District Women And Child Development Department Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. The President Child Protection Unit Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. The President District Child Welfare Committee Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. The Women Protection Office District Women And Child Development Department Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the Termination of petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order impugned dated 02/06/2018 issued by the respondent No. 03 (ANNEXURE P-1) with relates to petitioner with all consequentional benefits. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.02 12:01:56 +0530 2 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ/writs/ direction towards the respondent authorities to continued the service of the petitioner. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as if may deem fit and appropriate. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Superintendent of Chakradhar Bal Sadan, Raigarh, according to the provisions of Section 40 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Rules of 2016, vide order dated 03.02.2017. He would further submit that the petitioner made a complaint against a cook of the Ashram, namely Seema Chouhan, but the respondent authorities vide order dated 02.06.2018 terminated her services. He would also submit that no opportunity of hearing was provided and no enquiry was conducted. He would pray to quash the order dated 02.06.2018. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that there were serious allegations against the petitioner to the effect that she permitted male persons to enter the Ashram, who distributed food items. He would further submit that the children were permitted to watch movies, and their photographs were published in the newspaper. He would contend that there were other serious allegations against the petitioner. He would contend that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 24.05.2017, 30.05.2017, 08.08.2017, 21.08.2017, 06.01.2018, 29.01.2018, 30.01.2018 & 27.03.2018, and thereafter, a committee was constituted to enquire into the matter. He would further contend that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity, and her statement was also recorded by the enquiry committee. He would also contend that the competent authority, on the basis of the enquiry report and other material available on record, terminated the services of the petitioner. He would submit that the instant 3 petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 03.02.2017 to the post of Superintendent of Chakradhar Bal Sadan, Raigarh, District Raigarh, under the provisions of Section 40 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Rules, 2016, on a fix honorarium of Rs. 15,000/- per month, temporarily for a period of 3 months. 6. The documents would reveal that the petitioner committed various irregularities and show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 24.05.2017, 30.05.2017, 08.08.2017, 21.08.2017, 06.01.2018, 29.01.2018, 30.01.2018 & 27.03.2018. The Collector constituted a committee to enquire into the matter, and the enquiry report was submitted. The enquiry report would show that the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to defend her case. The statements of the complainant/cook Seema Chouhan, cook Savitri Gupta, cook Savitri Bareth, caretaker Jamuna Khadiya, caretaker Pratima Yadav, computer operator Rupali Ravani, house mother Manju Dewangan, house mother Aanchal Chouhan, Probationary Officer Manorma Sahu and the statements of children were also recorded and on the basis of the enquiry report, the competent authority took a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant