Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2727 of 2013 ====================================================== Neelam Saha, wife of Shri Mahadeo Saha, resident of village Basaha, Block Pipra, District Supaul .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.), Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa 5. The District Magistrate, Supaul 6. The District Programme Officer, Supaul 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Pipra, District Supaul .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 08-02-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of her removal from the post of Anganwari Sevika passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul dated 27.8.2012, as contained in Annexure 3, and its affirmance by the Collector of Supaul District by his order dated 16.10.2012 has moved this Court not only for setting aside the aforesaid orders but also for her reinstatement in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has initially submitted that the order passed by the District Programme Officer is bad because the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service was passed subsequently on 27.8.2012 but a decision Patna High Court CWJC No.2727 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013 2 for her removal had already been taken on 11.7.2012. In support of such submission he has placed reliance on the letter of the Child Development Project Officer, Pipra, Supaul, as contained in Annexure 5. From perusal of the said letter of the C.D.P.O. it is, however, clear that there was no such decision for terminating the service of the petitioner rather on finding unsatisfactory functioning of the centre of the petitioner and others while the concerned Anganwari Supervisors were under the process of being issued show cause notice, the District Programme Officer in order to keep the centre functioning had directed for its being attached to the nearer centre. That letter of the C.D.P.O. dated 11.7.2012 cannot be the evidence of bias and pre-determined attitude of the District Programme Officer.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel next submitted that the appellate order is a cryptic order, inasmuch as the petitioner’s number of contentions raised in the Memo of Appeal have not at all been answered by the Collector while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. This Court finds merits in such contention, inasmuch as from the Memo of Appeal it would be apparent that the petitioner had raised a number of grounds including grounds no. 5 to 12, which reads as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.2727 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013 3 “5. That no any copy of inspection report submitted by enquiry officer Ld. D.P.O. Supaul has ever been served to appellant. 6. That no any adverse report or complaint has been done against the appellant since joining till today. 7. That no any beneficiary has ever reported regarding non receipt or lesser receipt of THR as well as Poshahar. 8. That order discloses elaborate discussions which were not mentioned in S/c Notice or given chance of hearing to appellant. 9. That Ld. D.P.O., Supaul ought not pass any order to C.D.P.O. Pipra against the appellant before being heard for the same but he passed such order reflecting his decision which is completely erroneous in the eye of law. 10. That so far allegation no.1, regarding presence of only 10 children at the time of inspection is concerned, it is to be submitted that cultural programmer was organized by the side of centre where children as well as their guardians participated at light hours due to which letter children approached for pre-school education on the day of inspection. Besides it appellant was suffering from cold’s fever for last two three days which resulted the same also. 11. That so far allegation no.2 regarding availability of 1 Kg. prepared Poshahar is concerned, it is to be submitted that Poshahar is prepared in proportion to presence of children and 1 Kg. has been assessed Patna High Court CWJC No.2727 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013 4 approximate without weighing the same. 12. That copy of THR distribution register containing signature/ thumb impression regarding receipt of THR by all beneficiaries with village officers comments, not assessed at all, is attached here with for your kind alrused which can be well verified again.” From the impugned order of the Collector it, however, does not transpire that anyone of these grounds were even taken into account much less remotely considered, inasmuch as only consideration in this regard which can be found in the appellate order of the Collector of Supaul reads as follows: “bl izdkj vfHkys[k esa miyC/k dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls Li’V gS fd vihykFkhZ Jherh uhye lkg }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekudksa ds vuq:i dsUnz dk lapkyu ugh fd;k x;k rFkk dsUnz ds lapkyu esa /kksj ykijokgh cjrh x;h ftlds vkyksd esa viuk i{k j[kus dk ekSdk fn, tkus ds mijkar ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh] vkbZ0lh0Mh0,l0] lqikSy }kjk p;ueqfDr dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS A vr% mijksDr ds vkyksd esa vihykFkhZ p;ueqDr lsfodk Jherh uhye lkg ds vihy vkosnu dks vLohd‘r djrs gq, ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] vkbZ0lh0Mh0,l0] lqikSy ds vkns’k Kkikad 1239@izks0 fnukad 27-08-2012 }kjk fuxZr vkns’k dks lEiq"V fd;k tkrk gSA” It is true that the appellate authority is not required to pass lengthy reasoned order but when in the Memo of Appeal certain issues are raised, the appellate authority is under obligation to at least consider them and pass his reasoned order. In absence Patna High Court CWJC No.2727 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013 5 thereof the appeal becomes a mere formality. In the present case also when the petitioner had raised a grievance of non-supply of the enquiry report or that the reason for presence of lesser number of beneficiaries at the centre on the date of inspection of the District Programme Officer the appellate authority was required to apply his mind and give reasons for either accepting or rejecting them. That having been not done this Court must hold the appellate order to be cryptic and non-speaking reflecting non- application of mind.
Decision
In the result, the appellate order passed by the Collector is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Collector of Supaul District to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise must be completed by the Collector of Supaul District within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-