The Patna High Court, while disposing of a writ petition filed for quashing the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned District Magistrate, confirming the order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the District Programme Officer, whereby the petitioner was removed from the post of Anganbari Sevika, held that the District Magistrate at the time of hearing of the appeal must have enquired from any person other than those whose order was under challenge before him.
Brief Facts:
It was asserted that the petitioner is a poor lady and has been working on the post of Anganwadi Sevika since 1990 and during the aforesaid period, there has not been a single complaint against her. The petitioner was removed from the post of Anganbari Sevika by an order dated 12.06.2018 passed by the District Programme Officer, I.C.D.S. She went into appeal where the order of dismissal was confirmed. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the appellate order was passed in a gross violation of natural justice due to the reason that the District Magistrate passed the order after calling for a report from the District Programme Officer, who had passed the original order against the petitioner and the report was not called for from any individual persons other than those from whose order the petitioner is aggrieved.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the petitioner might have been appointed in the year 1999 but the inspection was made in the year 2017 when the Rule of 2016 was in existence and according to the said rule, the District Magistrate is the appellate authority and his order is final and therefore, there is no need to any interference.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the original order was passed by the District Programme Officer which was challenged before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, prior to passing the final order, called for a report from the District Programme Officer himself whose order was under challenge before the District Magistrate.
The Court observed that the development of such a type has to be examined as per the doctrine of bias as well as the doctrine of violation of natural justice. The Court said that the District Magistrate at the time of hearing of the appeal must have enquired from any person other than those whose order was under challenge before him.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the District Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order in this matter after conducting inquiry from a person other than District Programme Officer within 90 days.
Case Title: Rita Devi v The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anshuman
Case no.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1605 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
