Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15178 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Kendula Devi @ Kendula Kumari W/O Shri Prithvi Paswan R/O Village- Dheema, Post Office- Dheema, Police Station- Banmankhi, District- Purnea, At Present Posted As Anganwari Sevika, Haldiwari Chabutara, Kendra Code No. 26, Panchayat- Bishanpur Dutt, District- Purnea 2. Sita Devi W/O Shri Laxman Yadav R/O Village- Shiswa, Post Office- Dheema, Police Station- Banmankhi, District- Purnea, At Present Posted As Anganwari Sevika, Shiswa, Kendra Code No. 160, Panchayat- Maharajganj, District- Purnea Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Social Welfare Department, Patna, Bihar 3. The Assistant Director, I.C.D.S. Social Welfare Department, Patna, Bihar 4. The District Programme Officer, Purnea 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Banmankhi, District- Purnea 6. The Ladies Supervisor, Block- Banmankhi, District- Purnea .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/S. R. C. Thakur & Kamal Kishore Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to AAG 13. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 08-02-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows :- issued by direction/directions “That this writ petition is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, against order/orders, Respondents Authorities for quashing the order vide memo no. 2214 dated 25.06.2012 issued by the Director (Respondent no. 2), letter no. 681 dated 03.07.2012 the District Programme Officer, Purnea (Respondent no. 4) and Memo No. 761 dated 21.07.2012 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Banmankhi (Respondent No. 5) by which and where under the petitioners have been directed to deposit the total amount of Rs.44,916/- by the petitioner no. 1 and total amount of Rs.27,696/- by the petitioner no. 2 without enquiry and verification from the record available in the Patna High Court CWJC No.15178 of 2012 (2) dt.08-02-2013 2 Anganbari Kendra No. 26, Haldiwari Chabutra and Siswa, Maharajganj Panchayat Kendra No. 160 from the petitioner no. 2 in a quite arbitrary the illegal manner without following and guideline rules 8.5 of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika Selection Margdarshika 2010 under the following facts and circumstances of the case. “ and This Court is satisfied that the impugned order seeking to recover Rs.44,916/- from petitioner no. 1 and Rs. 27,696/- from petitioner no. 2 has been passed without issuing any
Decision
notice for hearing to them. The writ petitioners in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the writ application, have specifically asserted that the order of recovery from them was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing. Those paragraphs read as follows :- “ 18. That it is stated and submitted that the Child Development Project Officer, Banmankhi, Respondent No. 5, in the aforesaid memo no. referred the letter vide memo No. 2214 dated 25.06.2012 issued from the office of Director (Respondent no. 2) and the letter no. 681 dated 03.07.2012 issued from the District Programme Officer, Purnea by which and where under the Director has asked the District Programme officer, Purnea was requested to take proper actions in the light of the state level enquiry committee but without following the process suddenly the letter issued by the respondent no. 5 as referred above directed the petitioners to deposit the aforesaid amount in the respective letter in the name of the petitioners. it 19. that That is stated and submitted the Government of Bihar, Department of Social Welfare (Samekit Bal Vikash Seva Yojana) 2010 issued a guideline providing several rules for appointment and if any irregularities by the Sevika and Sahayika Patna High Court CWJC No.15178 of 2012 (2) dt.08-02-2013 3 then found and report submitted to the District Programme Officer, the District Programme Officer after hearing the parties the necessary order shall be passed but the instant case neither the petitioners were heard nor any opportunity to the petitioners are being given the relevant rules 8.5 to 8.8 are relevant guidelines for any action against the petitioners. The relevant rules of the guideline shall be placed at the time of hearing of this case. that 20. That is stated and it submitted report neither the enquiry prepared on the spot nor the opportunity to the petitioners have been given to the petitioners when the poor ladies petitioners are being directed to deposit the heavy amount which has been already being used for the relevant purpose meant the mid-day meals material along with the purchasing of the T.H.R. cost which have already been mentioned in the respective registers on the spot at the Anganbari Centres of the petitioners. “ for purchasing Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has relied on paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit which, to say the least, is vague and un-speaking. Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “ That to implement the scheme in proper manner, surprise inspection is done from time to time though state level officers. By the letter No. 1001 dated 20.03.2012 by Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna proper opportunity was provided of being heard meaning thereby the principle of natural justice was followed.” From the aforementioned averment it would not be clear as to when, where and by whom the petitioners were given such notice of opportunity of hearing as with regard to recovery of amount, even though the petitioners may not be the Patna High Court CWJC No.15178 of 2012 (2) dt.08-02-2013 4 government servant and thus not entitled to the protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India or the Discipline and Control Rule but the principles of natural justice will be applicable to them; especially when there are punitive orders in the form of recovery of amount from them. As a matter of fact when paragraph 18 of the writ application in the affidavit in paragraph 2 has been dealt as matter of record and paragraphs 19 and 20 also do not give any evidence of notice/opportunity of hearing, it becomes clear that it was virtually at the dictate of the Director, I.C.D.S. contained in his letter dated 14.03.2012 and his subsequent letter dated 25.06.2012 which have weighed upon the authority in passing the impugned order of recovery. While it may be true that the Director, I.C.D.S. may have issued an administrative order finding lapses on the part of Angan Bari Sevika/Sahayika but if such a report or observation is made by the Director, I.C.D.S., that would affect the concerned persons, as in this case the petitioners, they will be required to be given notice as also a copy of the report of the Director I.C.D.S. before any punitive action is taken against them. As a matter of fact, if the Director, I.C.D.S. has already made up his mind for effecting such recovery, it would be better that such opportunity of hearing is given to them by the Director, I.C.D.S. himself because the District Programme Officer, being a subordinate officer, a very little choice is left with him but to comply with the order of the Patna High Court CWJC No.15178 of 2012 (2) dt.08-02-2013 5 superior i.e. the Director, I.C.D.S. In that view of the matter, this Court would quash the impugned order and remit the matter back now to the Director, I.C.D.S. himself who will issue notice to the petitioners as with regard to the proposed recovery and will also give relevant materials on the basis of which he proposes to take action. The petitioners on receipt of such show cause notice form the Director, I.C.D.S. must file their reply within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such a show cause notice by them; whereafter the Director, I.C.D.S. shall pass his final order strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, this writ application is disposed of. Amin/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)