Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5603 of 2013 ====================================================== Priyanka Rani W/O Ajay Kumar R/O Shahoshkar Bandhu Bazar, P.S. Sohsarai, Distt. Nalanda Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Directorate Social Welfare Department 2nd Floor Indira Bhawan, R.C. Singh Road, Patna 800001 3. The Principal Secretary, S.W.D. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Officer, Nalanda 5. The District Programme Officer Nalanda 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Noorsarai Distt. Nalanda .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabindra Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha, AAG-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 12-02-2014 Since, this writ application has been restored today vide separate order passed in M.J.C No. 2748 of 2013 learned counsel for the parties have also been heard on the merit of this case. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- of an "For issuance appropriate order/orders/direction/directions/writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order vide Memo no. 3994 Pro dtd 19.09.2012 passed by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Nalanda (Respondent no. 4) whereby and whereunder the Respondent no. 4 has cancelled the agreement of the petitioner on the post of women supervisor, Noorsarai under I.C.D.S., Scheme under District Nalanda without asseging any legal and reasonable grounds.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.5603 of 2013 (3) dt.12-02-2014 2 the And further for issuance of an consequential writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and to respondents directing continue/reinstate the petitioner on the aforesaid post to pay with all consequential benefits and to pay the monthly salary for March 2012 to Sept. 2012 with statutory interest." authorities Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the C.D.P.O on 23.07.2012 had reported to the District Programme Officer, Nalanda that there was no complaint of any nature whatsoever against the petitioner either oral or written and her services were also reported to be satisfactory in the letter of C.D.P.O., Noorsarai dated 23.07.2012 to District Programme Officer, Nalanda it was not open for the District Officer (Collector), Nalanda to pass the impugned order holding the services of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner not being the Government servant and holding the post of female supervisor on contract, she cannot claim any protection under proviso to Article-311 of the Constitution of India. For such a person, if there is specific allegation, the only recourse is to give a show cause notice before taking the decision for removal from service. In this regard this Court finds that the Patna High Court CWJC No.5603 of 2013 (3) dt.12-02-2014 3 District Program Officer, Nalanda by his letter dated 05.09.2012 with the approval of District Officer, Nalanda had given a well considered show cause notice with particulars as with regard to the instances of the centres from where the money was being demanded by the petitioner. It also appears that an inquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and the allegationist being the Anganbadi Sevika as also other person had specifically supported the allegation of making demand of illegal amount by the petitioner. To that extent, it would be relevant to quote the show cause notice which has been annexed as Annexure-7 to this writ application:- ^^ukyUnk lekgj.kky; fcgkj 'kjhQ ftyk izksxzke 'kk[kk Kkikad 3705 @izksxzke fnukad 05-09-12 izsf"kr] Jherh fiz;adk dqekjh efgyk i;Zosf{kdk] uwjljk; fo"k;& fnuakad 26-06-12 dks uxjukSlk iz[k.M esa fd;s x;s cky iks"kkgkj&lg&fujh{k.k dk;Zdze esa vkids }kjk utk;t jkf'k fn;s tkus ds vkjksi esa ,djkjukek fuyafcr djrs gq, Li"Vhdj.k nsus ds laca/k esAa mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k eas lqfpr djuk gS fd fnukad 22-6- 12 dks uxjukSlk iz[k.M ds vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dSEi&1 dksM la[;k 39@dSyk dksM la[;k&40 ,oa dsUnz [kjtek dksM la[;k&41 iz[k.M uxjukSlk esa cky iks"kkgkj lg fujh{k.k dk;Zdze fd;s tkus gsrq vkidks ukfer fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa vkids }kjk tkap ds nkSjku dszUnz dSyk dksM la[;k 39 ls 4000-00 dsUnz dSyk dksM la[;k&40 ls 3000-00 ,oa Patna High Court CWJC No.5603 of 2013 (3) dt.12-02-2014 4 dsUnz [kjtek dksM la[;k 41 ls 3500-00 :i;s utjkuk olwyh fd;s tkus dk f'kdk;r cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh uxjukSlk ,oa lacaf/kr vkaxuokM+h lsfodk ds }kjk yh xbZA bl laca/k esa dk;kZy; Kkikad 2638@izks0 fnukad 30-06-12 ds }kjk vkidks fnukad 07-07-12 dks le; 2 cts v|ksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa lwuokbZ dh xbZ ftlesa lsfodk ,oa vU; xzkeh.kksa rFkk v/;{k }kjk :i;s ysus dh iqf"V dh xbZ rFkk Lo;a v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk fnuakad 11-08-12 dks laacaf/kr vkaxuokM+h dsUnzksa ij tk dj tkap dh xbZ tks lgh ik;k x;kA vkids }kjk lacaf/kr vkaxuokM+h lsfodk ls olwyh dh xbZ utk;t jkf'k ds vkjksi esa ,oa ik;s x;s lk{; ds vkjksi esa vkidk ,djkjukek fuyafcr djrs gq, vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 10-09-12 dks viuk Li"Vhdj.k miyC/k djk;s fd D;ksa ugha vkidks efgyk i;Zosf{kdk in ls jn~n fd;k tk;A ftyk inkf/kdkjh egksn; ds g0@& vkns'k fnukad 2-9-12 ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh lafpdk 25-6-12 ukyUnkA** It is also not in doubt that the petitioner had submitted the show cause reply on 10.09.2012 as contained in Annexure- 8, wherein, she had not denied the facts mentioned in the show cause notice specially as with regard to either holding any inquiry by the District Programme Officer, Noorsarai and the allegation being found by him to be correct in presence of the petitioner and such allegation to be supported by the Anganbadi Sevika as clearly mentioned in the show cause notice. In that view of the matter, whatever should have been said by the petitioner in the show cause reply by way of doing Patna High Court CWJC No.5603 of 2013 (3) dt.12-02-2014 5 her other duty and to have no allegation in performance of her duty will have no meaning in the eye of law and in fact the Collector of the district also while passing the impugned order after considering the show cause reply of the petitioner has fully gone into the defence of the petitioner as would be apparent from the relevant portion of the impugned order which reads as follows:- ^^vkns'k vkbZ0lh0Mh0,l0 funs'kky; fcgkj iVuk ds vkns'kkuqlkj fnukad 2206-2012 dks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk uxjukSlk vUrxZr vkaxuokM+h dsUnz ij cky iks"kkgkj lg fujh{k.k dk;Zdze djk;k x;k ftlesa vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dSyk1] dsUnz la0 39 dsUnz dSyk] dksM la0 40] ,oa dsUnz [jtEek] dksM la0 41 dk tkap efgyk i;Zosf{kdk Jherh fiz;adk jkuh cky fodkl ifj;kstuk dk;kZy; uwjljk; dks djus gsrq fn;k x;k FkkA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] uxjukSlk ds i=kad 292 fnukad 23-06-2012 ds }kjk izfrosfn fd;k x;k gS fd xzsfMax esa izfrfu;qDr vf/kdkjh }kjk lsfodkvksa ls vHknz O;gogkj ,oa iSlk dh ekax dh xbZ gS A lsfodkvksa ds }kjk fn;s x;s vkosnu i= esa mYys[k gS fd lacaf/kr efgyk i;Zosf{kdk }kjk dze'k% ikap&ikap gtkj :i;s fd ekax lacaf/kr lsfodk ls fd iSlk ugha nsus ij p;u eqDr djkus dh /kedh nh x;h tks lsfodk }kjk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSa p;ueqDr dh /kedh lqudj mDr lsfodk }kjk dze'k% 4000 ¼pkj gtkj½] 3000¼rhu gtkj½ ,oa 3500 ¼rhu gtkj ikap lkS½ :i;s efgyk i;Zosf{kdk dks ns fn;k x;k gSA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] uxjukSlk ls izkIr izfrosnu ds vkyksd esas dk;Zky; Kkikad 2637@izks0 fnukad 30-06-2012 ds }kjk Jhefr uhye dqekjh@lfork dqekjh ,oa vfurk dqekjh vkaxuokM+h lsfodk dks fnukad 7-0-2012 dks Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj viuk viuk lk{; izLrqr djus dk funs'k fn;k x;k Fkka mDr frfFk dks lsfodk ds }kjk tks viuk viuk lk{; izLrwr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa dze'k% 4000¼pkj gtkj½] 3000¼rhu gtkj½ ,oa 3500¼rhu gtkj ikap lkS½ :i;s efgyk i;Zosf{kdk dks fn;s tkus dh iqf"V dh gS ,oa dk;kZy; Kkikad 2638@izks0 fnukad Patna High Court CWJC No.5603 of 2013 (3) dt.12-02-2014 6 30-062012 ls efgyk i;Zosf{kdk fiz;adk jkuh uwjljk; ifj;kstuk ls fnukad 7-072012 ds }kjk Li"Vhdj.k Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj miyC/k djkus gsrq funsZ'k fn;k x;k izkIr Li"Vhdj.k esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd lsfodk }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjksi fujk/kkj ,oa cscqfu;kn gSA fnukad 11-08-2012 dks Lo;a ftyk izksxazke inkf/kdkjh ukyUnk ds }kjk vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dSyk 1] dksM la0 39@dsUnz dSyk dksM la0 40] ,oa dsUnz [kjtEek dksM la0 41 tkdj xzkeh.kksa ,oa lgkf;dk ls tkap ,oa iqN rkN dh x;h lHkh ,d Loj es Jhefr fiz;adk jkuh efgyk i;Zosf{kdk }kjk lsfodk dks Mjkdj jkf'k dh olwyh dh xbZ gS tks lgh izrhr gksrk gS ,oa Jhefr fiz;adk jkuh efgyk i;Zosf{kdk uwjljk; ij dkjZokbZ dh vuq'kalk fd;k x;k gSa iqu% dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 3705@izks0 fnukad 5-09-2012 ds }kjk Jhefr fiz;adk jkuh efgyk i;Zosf{kd uwjljk; fnukad 22-06-2012 dks fd;s x;s cky iks"kkgkj lg fujh{k.k dk;Zdze esa vkaxuokM+h lsfodk ls olwy dh xbZ uktk;t jkf'k ds vkjksi esa ,djkjukek fuyafcr djrs gq, fnukad 10-09-2012 dks Li"Vhdj.k miyC/k djus dk funs'k fn;k x;kA fnukad 10-09-2012 dks Jhefr fiz;adk jkuh efgyk i;Zosf{kdk uwjljk; }kjk tks Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS og vlarks"kizn ,oa eux<+ar ik;k x;kA iz/kku lfpo lekt dY;k.k foHkkx fcgkj] iVuk ds Kkikad 1846 fnukad 10-06-2010 ls fuxZr ekxZnf'kZdk ds df.Mdk (XIV) [k esa Li"V mYysk fd;k x;k gS fd efgyk i;Zosf{kdk }kjk vius dRrZO;ksa ds larks"kizn fuoZgu ugha fd;s tkus ,oa vfu;ferrk cjrs tkus ;k ,djkjukek ds 'krksZa dk mYy?kau djus dh fLFkfr esa ,djkjukek jn~n dj fn;k tk,xkA vr% lE;d fopkjksijkUr Jhefr fiz;adk jkuh efgyk i;Zosf{kdk uwjljk; ds }kjk fnukad 22-06-2012 dks cky fodkl iks"kkgkj lg fujh{k.k dk;Zdze esa vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dSyk1] dksM la0 39] dh lsfodk ls 4000 :i;s @¼pkj gtkj :i;s½ dsUnz dSyk dksM la0 40 dh lsfodk ls 3000@& :i;s ¼rhu gtkj :i;s½ ,oa dsUnz [kjtEek dksM la0 41 dh lsfodk ls 3500@ :i;s ¼rhu gtkj ikap lkS½ :i;s olwyus ds vkjksi esa ,djkjukek jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA g0@& ftyk inkf/kdkjh ukyUnkA Kkikad 3994 @izks0 fnukad 19@9@2012** Patna High Court CWJC No.5603 of 2013 (3) dt.12-02-2014 7
Decision
In view of the above, this Court would not find merit in that part of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some favourable report as with regard to the petitioner was given on 23.07.2012 by the C.D.P.O., Noorsarai. The allegation of petitioner's demanding and also realising the illegal amount was brought to the notice by the C.D.P.O., Nagarnausa and not by the C.D.P.O., Noorsarai and therefore the reference to the self serving report of the C.D.P.O., Noorsarai in no view of the matter could have lightened the charge against the petitioner. This Court in fact finds that the petitioner had been let off lightly by only removing her from service in respect of a very serious matter of allegation fully substantiated by oral and documentary evidence. Be that as it may, this Court for the reasons indicated above is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the District Officer, Nalanda. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)