Patna High Court - Orders
Smt. Babita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 August, 2014
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7144 of 2013
======================================================
Smt. Seema Kumari Wife of Sri Ravindra Singh Resident of Village -
Khorampur Khurd, P.S. Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Director, I.C.D.S. Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. Joint Director, I.C.D.S. Social Wefare Departmet, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
5. District Programe Officer, Gopalganj.
6. Child Development Programme Officer, Baikunthpur Block, District -
Gopalganj.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
With
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7188 of 2013
======================================================
Pratima Kumari Wife of Sri Birendra Prasad Resident of Village- Pakri,
P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Director, I.C.D.S. Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. Joint Director, I.C.D.S. Social Welfare Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
5. District Programme Officer, Gopalganj.
6. Child Development Programme Officer, Baikunthpur Block, District-
Gopalganj.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
With
Patna High Court CWJC No.7144 of 2013 (3) dt.28-08-2014
2
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7683 of 2013
======================================================
Smt. Babita Kumari Wife Of Sri Rakesh Pandey Resident Of Village-
Khorampur Brit, P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Director, I.C.D.S. Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. Joint Director, I.C.D.S. Social Welfare Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
5. District Programme Officer, Gopalganj.
6. Child Development Programme Officer, Baikunthpur Block, District-
Gopalganj.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.7144 of 2013)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.C. to G.P.-8
(In CWJC No.7188 of 2013)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, A.C. to AAG-5
(In CWJC No.7683 of 2013)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.C. to SC-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL ORDER
3 28-08-2014These three writ applications have been placed for admission together. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that identical issues of fact and law are involved in these three writ applications and as such they may be heard and disposed of together.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7144 of 2013 (3) dt.28-08-20143
Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the three writ applications and also the learned counsel for the State- respondents.
The petitioners were Anganbari Sevikas at Anganbari Centre Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in villages under Baikunthpur police station in the District-Gopalganj. The Director ICDS, on the basis of inspection report, issued direction as contained in the memo dated 08.08.2012, to the District Programme Officer to take action against the petitioners in view of clause A 1 (2) of the letter no. 2120 dated 20.06.2012.
The petitioners were served with separate show cause notices on 06.10.2012 directing them to explain the irregularities in the functioning of the Anganbari centres as found by the State level team in its inspection report. The petitioners filed their respective replies and after hearing the petitioners, the District Programme Officer passed separate orders against the three petitioners on 09.10.2012 cancelling their selection as Anganbari Sevikas in their respective Anganbari centres. The petitioners thereafter filed their appeals before the District Magistrate who after hearing the parties dismissed the appeals and upheld the order passed by the District Programme Officer. The orders passed Patna High Court CWJC No.7144 of 2013 (3) dt.28-08-2014 4 by the District Programme Officer on 09.10.2012 and the District Magistrate as appellate authority on 18.12.2012 against the three petitioners respectively are impugned in these writ applications.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the out set, has submitted that the identical issues have already been settled by this Court in the case of Manjula Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar 2013 (1) PLJR 901. It has been urged by the learned counsel that the inspection had been done not by a team but by one person and on the basis of his report, the Director ICDS had directed to take action against the petitioners as provided in the letter no. 2120 dated 20.06.2012 Clause A(1) (2). It has been pointed out by the learned counsel, by placing the said letter dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure-6), that the clause A (1) (2) provides for taking steps for cancellation of selection of Anganbari Sevika on whose centre the number of children present at the time of inspection is found to be less than 14 without sufficient reason. The learned counsel has further submitted that on the day of inspection there was festival of Nagpanchami and it was also raining heavily and due to that reason only 9 children were present but the District Programme Officer as well as the District Magistrate without disclosing the reasons had disbelieved the explanation submitted by the petitioners. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that Patna High Court CWJC No.7144 of 2013 (3) dt.28-08-2014 5 after the direction by the Director ICDS to cancel the selection of the petitioners as Anganbari Sevika, the authorities in the lower rank were left with no option but to abide by the same as has been held in the case of Manjula Kumari (supra).
The learned counsel for the State-respondents has firstly submitted that the petitioners has not availed the alternative remedy by moving before the Director ICDS against the order passed by the District Magistrate as provided in the guidelines. It has been further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioners in their replies to the show cause notices and finding that the said explanation was not believable.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties, it is manifest from the order/direction by the Director ICDS (Annexure-1) that the inspection of the centre of the petitioners was done not by a team as required by the guidelines but by one person. From the perusal of the orders passed by the District Programme Officer as well as the District Magistrate in appeal, it transpires that the authorities have not come to the conclusion that there was no festival of Nagpanchami on the day of inspection and there was no heavy rain. The direction as contained in letter Patna High Court CWJC No.7144 of 2013 (3) dt.28-08-2014 6 no. 2120 dated 20.06.2012 also requires the finding of absence of sufficient reason for presence of less than 14 children at the centre on the day of inspection before the order of termination of engagement of Anganbari Sevika can be ordered. Moreover, in the case of Manjula Kumari (supra) it has been held that after the direction by the Director ICDS, the authorities subordinate to him are left with no discretion in the matter and issue of show cause notice and grant of opportunity of hearing thereafter only amount to post decisional hearing and the futility of appeal and moving before the Director ICDS thereafter has also been noticed.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents has failed to point out that the inspection was done by a team and not by an individual and further that the required finding relating to the absence of sufficient reason due to festival of Nagpanchami and heavy rain on the date of inspection has been recorded before passing the order disengaging the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika. In the case of Smt. Nandini Devi Vs. The State of Bihar, 2014 (3) P.L.J.R. 565, where the inspection was done on the next day of Holi festival and the order was passed on the basis of absence of sufficient number of children, this Court has held that the said aspect should have been taken into consideration by the authorities.
For the aforesaid facts and reasons and aligning with Patna High Court CWJC No.7144 of 2013 (3) dt.28-08-2014 7 the view expressed in Manjula Kumari (supra), this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer and also the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the District Magistrate in appeal in all three writ applications. Nothing in this order however shall prevent the authorities from proceeding afresh against the petitioners in accordance with law.
The three writ applications are, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid observation.
Devendra/- (V. Nath, J) U