Patna High Court

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12429 of 2012 ====================================================== Veena Kumari Wife Of Amit Kumar Resident Of Village- Jamgaon, P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Social Welfare Deptt. Bihar, Patna 3. The Director Integrated Child Development, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 5. The Joint Director, Intergrated Child Development Services, Bihar, Patna 6. The District Programme Officer, Bhagalpur 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumari Amrita Gp10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 10-05-2013 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as with regard to the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Aanganbari Sewika passed by the District Program Officer, Bhagalpur, dated 08.06.2012, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that such order was passed on the dictation of Director, Integrated Child Development Services, also cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is true that after the centre was suddenly inspected by Joint Director, ICDS on 26.2.2012, the Director had forwarded the report to the District Program Officer on 26.3.2012 wherein the recommendation had been made for 2 removal of the petitioner but that order, in this case, has not weighed upon District Program Officer for the simple reason that the petitioner thereafter was asked to explain her conduct relating to her absence from Baluwa Chak Kendra no.38. She, however, did not explain, that due to her presence on the other Centre, she was not present in her Centre. If the petitioner had, therefore, virtually admitted the absence from her Centre and, if the petitioner also had deputed her husband to look after the work of her Centre that by itself was sufficient to hold that the petitioner has committed the gross misconduct. The circumstance of the petitioner being in additional charge of anothe Centre could have really made a difference in the consideration of the case of the petitioner had she claimed that she was working at the original centre at the time of inspection on 26.2.2012. In fact, the show cause notice to the petitioner issued by the District Program Officer on 24.05.2012 was quite specific which is quoted herein below:- izsf"kr] Jherh oh.kk dqekjh vkaxuokM+h lsfodk ¼izHkkjh½ dsUnz & clqvkpd dsUnz dksM la0%& 38 Ifj;kstuk %& txnh’kiqj fo"k;%& vkSpd fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dsUnz lapkyu ,oa lq[kk jk’ku forj.k esa vfu;ferrk ik;s tkus ds laca/k esaA jkT; Lrjh; tkWp ny }kjk fnukad& 16-02-2012 dks Jh jk/kkjeu >k 3 la;qDr funs’kd vkbZ0lh0Mh0,l0 funs’kky; }kjk vkids dsUnz dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k fujh{kh inkf/kdkjh us vius fujh{k.k izfrosnu es a vkids dsUnzksa ij dsUnz lapkyu esa vfu;ferrk dks n’kkZ;k gS bl dsUnz ij vkids ifr dsUnz ij mifLFkr Fks muds }kjk crk;k x;k fd vki dsUnz la0& 48 dh lsfodk gS ,oa dsUnz la0& 38 vkids vfrfjDr izHkkj esa gSA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dsUnz ij lgkf;dk vuqifLFkr FkhA vkids ifr }kjk crk;k x;k dh lgkf;dk xHkZorh gS oks ysV ls vkrh gSA dsUnz ij dkQh xanxh ikbZ xbZA dk;Z ds izfr ykojckgh ds vkjksi es a tkWp ny }kjk vkidks p;u eqDr djus dh vuqlalk fd;k gSA vkids fo:) yxk;k x;k mijksDr vkjksi dkQh xEHkhj gS vr% bl laca/k esa vki fnukad 05-06-2012 dks 2%00 cts vi0 v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k Vh0 ,p0 vkj0 iath ,oa lacaf/kr iath ds lkFk Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj Li"Vhdj.k lefiZr djsa fd D;ksa ugha mijksDr vkjksiksa ij xou dh xbZ ljdkjh jkf’k dh olwyh djrs gq, vkidks p;u ls eqDr dj fn;k tk;A g0@& vLi"V 24-5-12 ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] HkkxyiqjA It is in reply to this show cause notice that the petitioner had filed her show cause reply on 5.06.2012 which, for the sake of clarity and convenience is also quoted hereinbelow:- lsok esa] Jheku~ ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh HkkxyiqjA fo"k;%& Li"Vhdj.k ds laca/k esaA Izlax %& Hkonh; ds Kkiad 569 fnfukad 24-5-12 egk’k;] fuosnu iwoZd dguk gS fd eSa lsfodk oh.kk dqekjh] vkaxuckM+h dsUnz texk¡o dh lsfodk gw¡A eSa cyqvkpd dsUnz esa vfrfjDr izHkkj esa gw¡A 16-2-12 dks fuj{k.k ny 10-30 esa cyqvkpd dsUnz esa vk,] lgkf;dk dsUnz esa mifLFkr ugha FkhA vkSj fuj{k.k ny us xzkeh.k ls iwNk dsUnz [kqyrk gS fd ugha] [kkuk curk gS fd ugha T.H.R. dk forj.k gqvk gS fd ugha lHkh dk tokc xzkeh.kksa us fn;k gS] fd [kkuk curk gS] dsUnz le; ls [kqyrk gS] vkSj T.H.R. dk Hkh forj.k gqvk gSA xUnxh ds 4 ckjs esa eS a ckj&ckj dgrh gw¡ fd lkQ lQkbZ dsUnz dk gksuk pkfg, ysfdu lgkf;dk ugha djrh gSA vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gS fd bl nj[kkLr dks eatwj fd;k tk; vkSj esjs mij tks vkjksi yxk gSA mls {kek djrs gq, ,d ckj ekQ fd;k tk; ftlls Jheku~ dk lnk vHkkjh cuh jgwaxhA vkidk fo’oklh lsfodk oh.kk dqekj ¼izHkkj½ vkaxuokM+h dsUnz vfrfjfDr & oyqvkpd fnukad & 5-6-12 iapk;r & oyqvkpd iz[kaM & txnh’kiqj ftyk & Hkkxyiqj From the conjoined reading of the notice and the reply of the petitioner it is more clear that the petitioner never claimed that though she was holding additional charge of Centre no.38 at Baluachak she was present at her original centre n.48 in village Jamgam at the time of sudden inspection by the District Program Officer. In that view of the matter, this Court find no error in passing of the order of the District Program Officer. The functioning and success of Anganbari Scheme being a social welfare Scheme it is the Aanganbari Sewika who has to ensure presence of Children at Centre and also keep them engaged. If they do not do the allotted duty they cannot be allowed to continue in service. In view of the aforesaid finding , this Court also must hold that the ratio laid down in the case of Manjula Kumari Vrs. State of Bihar reported in 2012 (4) BBCJ 127 where it has 5 been held that if the order of the District Program Officer removing Aanganbari Sewika has been passed under direction of the Director, Integrated Child Development Services, the same has to be held to be bad. Here after the letter of Director, Integrated Child Development Services a show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner though had filed the reply but had failed to satisfy the Authority as with regard to reasons for her absence and, therefore, this Court is not in a position to accept that the impugned order has been passed by the District Program Officer under the direction of Director, Integrated Child Development Services which is also apparent from a bare reading of the impugned order dated 8.6.2012 itself; relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- Hkkxyiqj lekgj.kky; ¼ftyk izksxzke ’kk[kk½ vkns'k cky fodkl ifj;kstuk txnh’kiqj varxZr vkaxuckM+h dsUnz 38 cyqvkpd dk jkT; Lrjh; tkWapny ds tkWap inkf/kdkjh Jh jk/kkje.k >k la;qDr funs’kd vkbZ0lh0Mh0,l0 funs’kky; iVuk }kjk fnukad 16-02-2012 dks vkSpd fujh{k.k fd;k x;k A funs’kd vkbZ0lh0Mh0,l0 ds i=kad 1098] fnukad 26-03-12 esa fd;s x;s vuq’kalk ds vkyksd es a dsUnz ij ik, x, vfu;ferrk ij lEcfU/kr dsUnz dh izHkkjh lsfodk Jherh oh.kk dqekjh dks viuk i{k j[kus gsrq fnukad 05-06-2012 dks bl ekeys dh lquokbZ esa mifLFkr gksus dk funsZ’k bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 569] fnukad 24-05-2012 }kjk fn;k x;k A mHk; i{kksa dh mifLFkfr esa lquokbZ ds nkSjku lsfodk }kjk lefiZr Li"Vhdj.k larks"kizn ugha ik;k x;k A lsfodk }kjk crk;k x;k fd os dsUnz la0 41 dh lsfodk gS dsUnz la[;k 38 bUgsa vfrfjDr izHkkj es a fn;k x;k gS A dsUnz la0 38 ij lgkf;dk vuqifLFkr 6 Fkh A dsUnz ij dkQh xanxh ikbZ xbZ bl rjg lsfodk }kjk vius dk;ksZ ds izfr ykijokgh cjrh xbZ gS vr,o foHkkxh; ekxZnf’kZdk 2011 ds dafMdk 10-05 ds vkyksd esa dsUnz dk lapkyu fof/kor ugha djus ,oa dsUnz xank ik;s tkus ds vkjksi esa izHkkjh lsfodk Jherh oh.kk dqekjh dks iznRr ’kfDr ds v/khu rRdkfyd izHkko ls p;u eqDr fd;k tkrk gS A ;g p;ueqfDr vkns’k vkWaaxuckM+h oyqvkpd ,oa vkWaxuckM+h dsUnz texkWao nksuksa ij izHkkoh gksxk A cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh dks funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS f dos p;u eqDr lsfodk dks vkns’k dh izfr miyC/k djkrs gq, lsfodk ds fjDr nksuksa xanksa ij foHkkxh; ekxZnf’kZdk ds vuq:Ik p;u dh dkjZokbZ djuk lqfuf’pr djsa A cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh oSdfYid O;oLFkk ds rgr rRdky bl dsUnz dk izHkkj lehi ds dsUznz ls lEc) dj dsUnz dks fdz;k’khy j[kuk lqfuf’pr djsaxh A tyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh Hkkxyiqj A By now it is well settled that the Principles of natural justice is not a codified law and its application would depend on the facts and circumstances of a case. Here, in the present case, when the petitioner in her show cause reply did not deny the allegation of her absence from the Centre and deputing her husband to work in her place or the centre being not functioning properly and in fact even had not taken the plea for her being present in her original centre, she could not have expected any better order of removal. This court, therefore, does not find any flaw in the impugned order. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)