Pushpa Kumari vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 830 Patna

Patna High Court

Pushpa Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 15 April, 2026

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21468 of 2013
     ======================================================
     Pushpa Kumari Wife of Amal Kant Das Resident of Madangachi, P.S.
     Mokama, District Patna.

                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                   Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
     Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   District Magistrate Cum Collector, Patna District, Patna.
3.   District Programme Officer, Child Development Project, Bihar, Patna.
4.   Child Development Project Officer, Mokama Circle, Mokama, Patna District
     Mokama.
5.   Smt. Kiran Kumari, W/o Mr. Singheswar Kumar Anganvadi Sevika,
     Anganvadi Centre No.- 204, Modangachi, P.S.- Mokama, Distt.- Patna, Pin
     Code No.- 803302.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :         Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv
     For the Respondent/s   :         Mr. Prahlad Kr. Bhagat
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
     CAV JUDGMENT
     Date : 21-04-2026
                  Heard the parties.

                     2. The present writ petition has been filed for the

      following reliefs:-

                                i) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any
                                other appropriate writ, order or direction be
                                issued setting aside the original order dated
                                25.09.12

contained in letter no. 258 dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-7) passed by District Programme Officer and the appellate order dated 17.05.2013 passed by the collector Patna District, in Appeal Case No. 186 of 2012 (Annexure-12) whereby the appellate Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order terminating the service of the petitioner as Anganvadi Sevika as arbitrary and without due application of mind and in violation of basic principles of Natural justice with consequential benefits including reinstatement of the petitioner in service with back wages.

ii) That the petitioner may be granted any other/additional relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts of the case.

iii) that the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner salary for the period 11.10.2012 till 01.12.2012, the period between the dated of issue of the impugned order dated 25.9.2012 issued by the District Programme Officer, Patna directing termination of petitioners service and the service of the same on the petitioner on 01.12.2012.

iv) Respondents be directed to refund to the petitioner the arrears of rent for the premises ( one room & veranda) of Shri. Girish Paswan of village Mohangachi which was on rent @ Rs. 200/- per month for the use of the Anganvadi.

3.The brief facts giving rise to the present writ Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

petition are that the petitioner was selected as Anganvadi Sevika

by the Aam Sabha held on 24.02.2007, for the said purpose for,

under the Integrated Child Development Programme at

Anganvadi Centre No. 204 in village Mohangachhi of Mokama

Block. In the same village, there is another Anganvadi Centre

having code no. 205, where another Anganvadi Sevika is said to

have been working. The petitioner was working to the

satisfaction of the authorities concerned, however, the Child

Development Programme Officer (hereinafter referred to as

CDPO), Mokama, conducted a surprise inspection on

12.07.2012 and found certain irregularities at Anganvadi Centre

No. 204, where the petitioner was working. Pursuant thereto,

vide memo No. 1804 dated 11.08.2012 issued under the

signature of the District Programme Officer (hereinafter referred

to as DPO), Patna, a show cause notice was issued to the

petitioner with regard to the irregularities found during the

course of inspection on 12.07.2012. The petitioner was directed

to appear before the District Programme Officer, Patna, along

with all the relevant documents on 27.08.2012. The petitioner

went to the office of the District Programme Officer, Patna, on

the date fixed i.e. 27.08.2012, however, she was informed by the

CDPO, that the District Programme Officer, Patna has been Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

transferred and the petitioner would be informed of the next date

of hearing, after the new incumbent will join on the said post.

Not satisfied with the reply given by the CDPO, the petitioner

sent her husband to the office of the DPO, Patna, along with her

reply, wherein it was informed that the DPO has already been

transferred and no date was fixed for Anganvadi Centre No.

204. However, it was informed that memo No. 1804 dated

11.08.2012 is with respect to Anganvadi Centre No. 205 and the

date for the said Centre is fixed for 27.08.2012. It is further case

of the petitioner that since the petitioner did not receive any

further notice for her appearance, she went to the office of the

DPO, Patna and submitted her reply in the office of the DPO

along with all the relevant documents in support of her claim.

All of a sudden, vide memo no. 258 dated 10.10.2012, issued

under the signature of the DPO, Patna, the impugned order

dated 25.09.2012 was communicated to the petitioner, by which

the petitioner was removed/relieved from Anganvadi Centre No.

204 and it was mentioned in the said order that the CDPO

informed the DPO, Patna that despite issuance of notice, the

petitioner refused to accept the said notice.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that while passing the impugned order dated 25.09.2012, the Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

DPO, Patna mentioned about receiving complaint from two of

the beneficiaries in payment of Poshak Rashi, however, the

mother of the two beneficiaries filed an affidavit, denying that

they had ever made any complaint before any authority. The

petitioner filed statutory appeal before the Collector, Patna and

the same was numbered as Anganvadi Appeal No. 186 of 2012,

however, the Collector, Patna without even considering the

grounds raised by the petitioner in her memo of appeal

proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide

his order dated 17.05.2013.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner, as per the Anganvadi Scheme, was to arrange

for suitable place/ premises for the Anganvadi Centre for which

a provision for rent of Rs. 200/- per month was allotted in the

programme. It was for the Anganvadi Sevika to hire suitable

premises for the Centre and to pay the agreed rent to the

landlord for the premises. The expenses incurred by the

Anganvadi Sevika by way of rent for premises hired by her, to

the extent of Rs. 200/- per month, was to be reimbursed by way

of bank transfer in the specified account of the Sevika, by the

District programme officer/officer concerned from time to time.

Further, the said amounts were not reimbursed to the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

and even salaries were not paid to the petitioner in her bank

account.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the impugned order dated 25.09.2012, issued under the

signature of the District Programme Officer (Patna) has been

issued in complete violation of the principles of natural justice

since, vide notice dated 11.08.2012, the petitioner was directed

to appear before the DPO, Patna on 27.08.2012, however on the

said date, the DPO, Patna was transferred and no proceeding

was held on that date. Subsequently, no notice was ever issued

to the petitioner, by fixing another date and this fact has not

been denied by the respondent authorities in their counter

affidavit. The DPO, Patna has stated/recorded in his order dated

25.09.2012 that any other date was fixed for appearance of the

petitioner or not. He only relied on the statement made by the

CDPO, Mokama, that the petitioner refused to receive the

notices issued to her. This goes to prove that the order impugned

has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice

and deserves to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to

and relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported

in 2023 (2) BLJ 144 (Ranju Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

Ors.), wherein in paragraph nos. 09 to 11, it has been held as

follows:-

"9. It is not in dispute that the appellant had been removed from the post of Anganwari Sevika based on certain allegations and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her after the appellant had submitted her show cause. The respondert no.4, all of a sudden without prior information to the appellant and without hearing, passed an ex-parte order behind her back on 13.02.2012. In other words, there is a clear of principles of natural justice. The aforesaid material is suffice to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge and order of the authority for removal of the appellant from service.

10. Moreover, recently the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Ananda Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra & others reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 30 in para 17 has held as under:-

"17. It is a well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents extensively, MP Jain & SN Jain's treatise on Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

Principles of Administrative Law notes that: "If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings".

11. The Apex Court in the case of Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chetan Kamble and Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

Others, reported in 2022 (4) SCALE 284, held that even the administrative orders which are quasi-judicial must be passed after giving the opportunity to the concerned person. The principle laid down in this case is aptly applicable to the case in hand. In paragraph no. 28, the Apex Court held as under:-

"...This Court has clearly advocated the importance of natural justice and an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the affected party in any administrative or quasi judicial proceedings umpteen number of times..."

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

refers to and relies upon another Division Bench Judgment of

this Court reported in 2023 (2) BLJ 607( Meera Devi Vs. State

of Bihar & Ors), wherein in paragraph no. 13, it has been held

as follows:-

"13. The Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in Para-47 has held as under:-

47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-

making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is Important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision- making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision- making not only less prone to errors but also makes makes the judges and decision-

makers them subject to broader scrutiny. Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija vs. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

refers to and relies on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India reported in 2025 (7) SCC 545 ( Krishnadatt Awasthy

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others), wherein in Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

paragraph no. 56, it has been held as follows:-

"56. In the absence of notice, the breach strikes at the fundamental core of procedural fairness, rendering the decision invalid unless exceptional circumstances justify such deviation. The vitiation of selection was not only a breach of the principles of natural justice but also contrary to the express statutory provision that required for an opportunity to show cause and an opportunity to provide self- defence. The prejudice theory must be understood as an exception to the general rule and cannot therefore be the norm. In view of the foregoing, a gross violation of the principle of audi alteram partem is noticed in the present case."

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent-State submits that all the inspections were

carried out by the CDPO, in accordance with law and the report

was submitted as per the guidelines given in the departmental

letter No. 956 dated 14.03.2012 of the ICDS, department of

Social Welfare, Government of India. The CDPO, Mokama,

inspected the Centre and recorded her findings in the inspection

register, about the anomalies found at the Centre. Further, the Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

allegation of the petitioner that the notice was for Centre No.

205 and not for 204, is baseless since in the notice itself after

correction, the authority concerned, put his initial at the place

where overwriting has been made. The petitioner, for the

reasons best known to her, choose not to file her show cause

reply before the DPO on 27.08.2012 and it is incorrect to say

that on 27.08.2012 no case was fixed in the office of the DPO,

Patna. The petitioner was given due opportunity by the

authorities concerned, but she choose not to appear either in

person or through any representative.

11. The learned counsel for the State further

submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner was duly

examined and considered by the Collector, Patna and after

hearing the parties at length, the Collector proceeded to reject

the appeal filed by the petitioner. It has further been submitted

that one Kiran Kumari has been appointed as Anganvadi Sevika

of the Anganvadi Centre no. 204 in view of fresh advertisement,

after proceeding of the Aam Sabha, which was conducted on

05.01.2016 and selection letter has already been issued to her

vide memo no. 28 dated 31.10.2016.

12. The learned counsel for the State further

submits that during course of inspection by the CDPO, Mokama Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

the stock register and other registers were not shown by the

Anganvadi Sevika and anomalies were found in distribution of

dress to the children. They were not given proper breakfast and

the villagers also lodged complaint that the number of children

were found to be less. The poster, menu chart and list of

beneficiaries were also not displayed on the board and there has

been irregularity in the distribution of Poshak amount and take

Home Ration. The petitioner did not bothered to file any reply

to the show cause notice or did not appear before the District

Programme Officer, Patna on the date fixed i.e. 27.08.2012. It

has further been argued that there is no question of violation of

any provisions of law, including the principles of natural justice

since due notices were issued to the petitioner by the authorities

concerned, to appear before DPO, Patna, but for the reasons

best-known to the petitioner, she did not appear or filed any

reply to the show cause. Even the Collector rejected the appeal

preferred by the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner/ learned

lawyer appearing on her behalf.

13. It appears from the record that vide order dated

09.01.2024 passed in the present proceeding, while allowing

I.A. No. 03 of 2023 a learned Co-ordinate Bench of the Court

was pleased to direct for issuance of notice upon the newly Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

added respondent no. 05 i.e. Kiran Kumari, who was selected in

place of the petitioner in 2016 and vide order dated 13.03.2024

the notices upon respondent no. 05 was treated to be validly

served and it was recorded that despite notice none appears on

behalf of the respondent no. 5. Subsequently, vide office report

dated 22.04.2024 it transpires that a counter affidavit was filed

on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and the same has been kept on

record. When the matter was called out on 30.03.2026, none

appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 05, however, the

matter was heard in part and an opportunity was given to the

respondent no. 05 by informing her lawyer to appear on the next

date, but even then none appeared on the behalf the respondent

no. 05 on 31.03.2026 and finally the matter was heard and the

judgment was reserved.

14. From the counter affidavit filed on the

respondent no. 05, it appears that after termination of the

petitioner, the respondent no. 05 has been appointed as the

Anganvadi Sevika of the said Anganvadi Centre, in view of

fresh advertisement and after proceeding of the Aam Sabha

conducted on 05.01.2016. Selection Letter was issued to the

respondent no. 5 vide memo no. 28 dated 13.01.2016. She gave

her joining on 31.08.2016 before the CDPO, Mokama, after Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

obtaining training certificate from the Anganvadi Centre from

30.07.2016 to 30.08.2016. It has further been averred that the

respondent no. 05 is not at fault for termination of the petitioner

or has got no role in her selection.

15. Having considered the rival submissions and

after going through the records, it appears that an inspection was

conducted by the CDPO, Mokama and report was submitted on

12.07.2012. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued to the

petitioner on 11.08.2012, by fixing 27.08.2012 as the date for

her appearance, for filing reply to the said show cause notice. It

is the case of the petitioner that she appeared on the said date

but, on account of the transfer of the DPO, Patna, no hearing

took place and this fact has not been denied by the respondent

authorities in their counter affidavit, that any hearing was

conducted by the DPO or not. Further from the pleadings on

record, it appears that no further notice was given to the

petitioner and no date was fixed by the respondent authorities

for appearance of the petitioner, to place her case and all of a

sudden, by the impugned order dated 25.09.2012, the order

relieving the petitioner from the post of Anganvadi Sevika was

passed. From the order impugned itself it appears that only one

notice was given to the petitioner on 11.08.2012 and no further Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

notice/date was fixed for her appearance, to place her case and

the DPO, Patna, only on the basis of the submission made by the

CDPO, Mokama, proceeded to relieve the petitioner as

Anganvadi Sevika. Even the District Magistrate, Patna

proceeded to affirm the said order passed by the DPO, Patna on

mechanical ground, without taking into consideration the

grounds taken in the memo of appeal, which was filed before

the D.M., Patna, It further appears that the counsel for the

respondent no. 05 did not choose to appear, despite opportunity

granted to him. However, from the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of the respondent no. 05, it transpires that since the

Anganvadi Centre was vacant on account of relieving of the

petitioner, she has been appointed in 2016.

16. Accordingly, from the consideration made

above, this Court is of the opinion that memo no. 258 dated

10.10.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna and

memo no. 1475 dated 10.06.2013 passed by the District

Magistrate, Patna deserves to be set aside and are accordingly

set-aside.

17. The respondent authorities are directed to take

necessary steps for the reinstatement of the petitioner and

further directed to pay the petitioner salary for the period Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026

11.10.2012 till 01.12.2012 i.e. the period during which the

petitioner worked and to refund/reimburse the rent for the

premises, which was taken by the petitioner after making

payment at her own level, for running the Anganvadi Kendra.

18.With the aforementioned observations/directions

the writ petition is allowed.

19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands

disposed of.

(Ritesh Kumar, J) krishnakant/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                31.03.2026
Uploading Date          21.04.2026
Transmission Date       NA