1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.212 of 2016 ----- Rekha Nika, wife of Sri Ashish Mishra, resident of Belakhonda, PO and PS Bhatdee, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department (Social Protection), Project Building, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 3.Deputy Commissioner, PO and PS Dhanbad 4.Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad 5.District Social Welfare Officer, Dhanbad 6.Child Development Project Officer, Baghmara, Dhanbad … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines III …...... 21 /04.03.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner was working as an Anganbari Sevika from 2004. She was removed by impugned order dated 15.10.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1468 (Annexure-10) to the writ petition which is also Annexure-H to the supplementary counter affidavit. 3. I have gone through the impugned order. I find that it has been simply mentioned that on the recommendation of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad the petitioner has been removed from the post of Aanganbari Sevika of village Belakhonda-1 (Aanganbari Centre Code No. 150). Further, several documents which have been annexed with the counter affidavit suggests that there was an allegation against the petitioner. The allegation is that she had tried to destroy the assets by putting fire and thereafter tried to mislead higher officials. 4. Removal of the petitioner in view of the said allegation is nothing but stigmatic. Though a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has replied but there is nothing on record to suggests that the Authorities had considered her show cause and her defence. Without whispering any reason, the order of removal has 2 been passed. Though it was not there in the impugned order, in the letter dated 26.09.2015 which is an internal correspondence, some explanation is sought to be given that the explanation given by the petitioner was considered and the reason for not accepting the same has been spelled out, I am of the opinion that the same does not comply with the principles of natural justice. The reasons for coming to the said conclusion was some inquiry. The petitioner was not the party to the said inquiry. When the petitioner is removed based on some inquiry and the order is stigmatic the petitioner should have been given opportunity to participate in the inquiry process which the petitioner was deprived of. Thus there is violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Considering what has been held above, impugned order dated 15.10.2015 by which the petitioner is removed is set-aside. Liberty is reserved with the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by holding a proper inquiry if they want to initiate the same against the petitioner. Only after giving opportunity to the petitioner to be party to the inquiry proceedings, the respondents should take further steps. 6. The entire process of inquiry should be concluded within three months from today where the petitioner will cooperate. The respondents are free to take a decision on the question of reinstatement based on the final decision. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/