Patna High Court
Sunita Jaiswal vs The State Of Bihar on 10 January, 2024
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.605 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.71 of 2020
======================================================
Sunita Jaiswal, Wife of Sunil Kumar Resident of AT- Chauhatta, Ward No. 8,
P.S.-Kishanpur, Block- Kishanpur, District-Supaul.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Schemes, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Deputy Director, Welfare Department, Kosi Division, Saharsa.
5. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul.
7. The District Programme Officer, Supaul.
8. The Block Development Officer, Kishanpur, District- Supaul.
9. The Child Development Project Officer, Kishanpur, District- Supaul.
10. Lalita Kumari, Wife of Krishan Mohan Paswan Resident of At- Chauhatta,
Ward no. 8, P.S.-Kishanpur, Block- Kishanpur, District-Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY)
Date : 10-01-2024
Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has preferred the present
appeal against the order dated 4.2.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 71 of 2020 by which her
petition challenging the orders of the respondents against her
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2023 dt.10-01-2024
2/9
removal from the post of 'Anganbari Sevika' of the
Anganbari Center No. 76 (henceforth 'the Center') Dhatta
Tola Mushari under the Block Kishanpur, Supaul was
dismissed.
3. The facts of the case in narrow compass
is/are as follows:
(i) the appellant-petitioner was serving
as an 'Anganbari Sevika' at the
'Anganbari' Center when on 12.3.2022
at 1:30 PM, an inspection was made by
the Child Development Project Officer,
Supaul (henceforth for short 'the
CDPO') and according to her
inspection report, the Center was found
closed and the villagers upon enquiry,
informed that both the 'Sahayika' and
'Sevika' have left the Center prior to
the inspection;
(ii) relying upon the said inspection
report, the District Programme Officer,
Supaul (henceforth for short 'the DPO')
without consideration of her
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2023 dt.10-01-2024
3/9
explanation and/or the statements of
the villagers, passed an order dated
25.8.2012
communicated vide memo
no. 1278 dated 31.8.2012 by which her
services were terminated.
4. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed vide
Anganbari Appeal No. 48-19/2012 before the Deputy
Director, Welfare, Koshi Division, Saharsa which was
rejected by a cryptic order stating that for the same cause of
action, C.W.J.C. No. 16151 of 2013 has been preferred
which was subsequently withdrawn.
5. Aggrieved, C.W.J.C. No. 19266 of 2014
was preferred which was taken up by a bench of this Court
and vide an order dated 17.12.2018, the Appeal No. 48-
19/2012 was set aside, the appeal was restored to its original
file directing the respondents to dispose it of after giving
opportunity to the petitioner.
6. This followed the consideration of the
appeal by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul
who vide a reasoned order dated 26.10.2019 rejected the
same. This followed C.W.J.C. No. 71 of 2020 which came
to be dismissed on 4.2.2023.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2023 dt.10-01-2024
7. Still aggrieved, the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-petitioner submits that as per the inspection report
submitted by 'the CDPO', 'the Center' was found closed and
the villagers informed that both the 'Sahayika'/'Sevika' have
just left 'the Center'.
9. It is thus his submission that in that
background, when the villagers themselves said that the
'Sahayika'/'Sevika' have just left 'the Center' before the said
inspection, her show cause needed consideration as also the
statements of the villagers should have been recorded on
whether on that particular day, 'the Center' was open or not
and whether the children as recorded by the
'Sahayika'/'Sevika' were in attendance or not before taking a
decision.
10. Instead, only on the basis of a vague
report of 'the CDPO', the services were terminated and the
appeal thereafter rejected.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioner has relied on an order of the Division Bench of the
Court in the case of LPA No. 905 of 2019 (Mehin Nigar
Begum vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) and it is necessary to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2023 dt.10-01-2024
incorporate the relevant paragraphs 3 to 5 which read as
follows:
3. Perusal of the records, it is
evident that even though allegations
are serious in nature when the
appellant had disputed and filed her
explanation, the same has not been
considered by the competent
authority. At the same time, if there
are disputed facts in that event a
formal inquiry was warranted
including examination of the author
of the inspection report in the light of
the Apex Court decision in the case
of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab
National Bank reported in (2009) 2
SCC 570.
4. Recently Apex Court in the case of
Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs
Chetan Kamble reported in 2022
SCC On Line SC 246 held that
opportunity of hearing is to be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2023 dt.10-01-2024
afforded to the affected party in
respect of administrative or quasi
judicial proceedings. The principle
laid down in the aforementioned
judgment is aptly applicable to the
case in hand.
5. In the present case, the appellant
is working since the year 2003, even
though there were no disciplinary
regulation governing the post of
'Anganbari Sevika' at the same time,
if there are serious allegations in
such an event a formal inquiry
should have been held before passing
order of removal from service. The
same has not been appreciated by the
learned single judge while passing
the impugned order on 12.07.2019 in
C.W.J.C. No. 10485 of 2017.
Accordingly, the present LPA is
allowed while setting aside the order
dated 12.07.2019 and order of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2023 dt.10-01-2024
removal from service dated
03.04.2017 read with 29.12.2014.
12. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 9 and they have just
supported the stand of the respondents stating that 'the
Center' was found closed and there was false entry in the
attendance register for that particular day and in that
background, the decisions were taken which is/are fully
justified. Further submission is that subsequently, another
lady, the respondent no. 10 (Lalita Kumari) has joined the
post.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioner on the said point submits that while selecting the
respondent Lalita Kumari, the respondents have taken care
and have incorporated in the selection letter that the selection
shall be subject to the decision of the Court. He as such
submits that there is no embargo in setting aside the orders in
question.
14. The respondent no.10 has also appeared
and supported the stand of the official respondents and it is
further submission that she is working on the said post since
her selection in the year 2013, which may not be disturbed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2023 dt.10-01-2024
15. This Court has gone through the
submissions put forward by the parties and also have perused
the records. The fact remains that the when inspection was
conducted at 1:30 PM though the Center was found closed,
'the CDPO' herself has recorded that the villagers informed
that both the 'Sahayika'' and 'Sevika' have just left 'the
Center'.
16. The allegation against the appellant-
petitioner by the respondents is/are that despite 'the Center'
being closed, the attendance of the students were shown and
as such serious irregularities committed.
17. The appellant having filed her show
cause, in that event, the respondents were duty bound to hold
an enquiry before a final decision is taken. No such
step/effort taken and only on the basis of the report of 'the
CDPO', the decision was taken. 'The CDPO' has not thought
it fit to record the name of the villagers, to whom she
enquired; who could also have been examined in a properly
constituted enquiry.
18. In Mehin Nigar Begum (supra), the
Division Bench of this Court on the similar facts and
circumstances chose to interfere in the matter. This Court has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.605 of 2023 dt.10-01-2024
no hesitation in taking the same line.
19. In that background, the order dated passed
by the learned Single Judge dated 04.02.2023 in C.W.J.C.
No. 71 of 2020 as also the orders passed by the respondents
District Programme Officer, Supaul (vide memo no. 1278
dated 31.8.2012) and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Supaul (in Anganbai Appeal No. 48-19/2012-16/2019 dated
26.10.2019) are set aside.
20. The Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed.
The appellant-petitioner shall be reinstated on the post she
was holding forthwith.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.01.2024
Transmission Date
