Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.1798 OF 2013 =================================================== 1.RENU KUMARI W/O RABINDRA PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - NAIMA, POLICE STATION - TELHARA, DISTRICT - NAWADAH 2.RENU KUMARI W/O ASHIW KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - NAIMA, POLICE STATION - TELHARA, DISTRICT - NAWADAH .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1 THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA 3.THE DISTRICT PROGRAMMER OFFICER, NALANDA 4.THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BLOCK EKANGERSARAI, DISTRICT - NALANDA 5.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6.THE DIRECTOR, ICDS, DIRECTORATE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. .... .... RESPONDENT/S =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Kamlesh Kumar For the Respondent/s:Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra SC21 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3/ 31-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Having restored this writ application by a separate order passed in M.J.C No. 716 of 2013, this Court has heard the parties on merits. The petitioner’s services on the post of Anganbadi Sevika having been terminated on account of her being found absent from duty as also the closure of Centre on account of her absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order passed by the District Programme Officer, Nalanda and its
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.1798 of 2013 (3) dt.31-07-2013 2 affirmance in the appeal by the Collector of the Nalanda district has submitted that the petitioner has suddenly developed a chest pain in the morning of 01.03.2013 and as such had been taken to the Doctor at Ekangarsarai where she was treated and after treatment, she could reach the Centre at 12:30 am, whereafter the Centre started functioning and the dress materials were also distributed. He would, accordingly, submit that this information of her absence given to the Mukhia ought not to have been held unauthorized absent from duty. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Centre having been found to be closed at 11:30 on 01.03.2012 to be an admitted fact and not even denied by the petitioner in show cause reply, this Court would not accept the rest of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner of her becoming present at 12:30 pm on the same date. The medical prescription heavily relied upon by the petitioner would itself go to show that the petitioner went before the retired Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital at Ekangarsarai in his private clinic in the morning. If the petitioner was treated in the morning with the medicines which Patna High Court CWJC No.1798 of 2013 (3) dt.31-07-2013 3 has been prescribed and had also been asked to take rest and report for further investigation there was no occasion for the petitioner to be present after one hour of the inspection. The way the medical certificate has been manufactured, will be sufficient to show that the petitioner had procured this document to create her defence to show herself to be present at the Centre at 12:30 pm. The whole thing however in this regard gets exposed from the medical certificate dated 01.03.2012, wherein, the Doctor has recorded as follows:- Sarai, Nalanda
Legal Reasoning
"Certified that Smt. Renu Kumari, Anganbadi Sahaika, Naiwam Enkanger was brought to my clinic on 01.03.2012 in the morning and on examination, I find that she is suffering from Hypertension Heart trouble which was on at 01.03.2012. brought am 12 Due to above placed (from 6/30 am to 12 am) she was on rest on 01.03.2012. Now she is fit. SD 01.03.2012 If the petitioner was taking rest up to 12 am in the clinic, it would be difficult for this Court to believe that the distribution of the dress materials was done by her on 1.3.2012. Obviously, all these documents were manufactured and the Collector of the district therefore did Patna High Court CWJC No.1798 of 2013 (3) dt.31-07-2013 4 not commit any error in passing the order of termination of the petitioner, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^vkosfndk ds foK vf/koDrk }kjk crk;k x;k fd fnukad 01-03-12 dks 11]33 cts ,daxjljk; iz[k.M vUrxZr vkaxuckM+h dsUnz la[;k 36] ubZek dk fujh[k.k cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] ,daxjljk; }kjk fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds dze es dsUnz cUn ik;k x;kA lsfodk@lgkf;dk vuqifFkr ik;h x;hA mDr vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa crk;k x;k fd lsfodk g‘n; jksx ls xzflr jgus rFkk fnukad 01-03-12 dks lqcg lhuk esa nnZ jgus ds dkj.k 12]00 cts rd MkW0 jktsUnz izlkn] fpfdRld ds ;gka bZykt ds njE;ku HkrhZ jgha bl chp dsUnz dk lapkyu lgkf;dk }kjk fd;k tk jgk FkkA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] ,daxjljk; }kjk dsUnz fujh{k.k ds iwoZ fo|ky; Hkou ds ihNs lgkf;dk cPpksa ds fy, iks"kkgkj cuk jgh FkhA fo|ky; ds pkikdy [kjkc jgus ds dkj.k lgkf;dk xkao ls ikuh ykus x;h gqbZ Fkh blh chp cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh dsUnz ij vk;s vkSj lgkf;dk ds dsUnz ij ykSVus ds iwoZ gh izLFkku dj x;h] mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd fnukad 01-03-12 dks cPpksa ds chp iks’kkd dk forj.k fd;k tkuk Fkk] blfy, rfc;r Bhd gksus ds i’pkr muds }kjk dsUnz ij 12-30 cts LFkkuh; iapk;r izfrfuf/k okMZ lnL; dh mifLFkfr esa cPpksa ds chp iks’kkd dh jkf’k dk forj.k fd;k x;ka muds fo:n~/k fdlh Hkh xzkeh.kksa dk dksbZ f’kdk;r ugha gS] muds }kjk Vh0,p0vkj0 ,oa iks"kkgkj dk forj.k fu;fer :i ls fd;k tkrk gSa muds }kjk vius dk;Z ds izfr dHkh ykijokgh ugha cjrh xbZ gSa mijksDr rF;ksa ls ftyk izksxzke inkf/kkdjh dks voxr djk;k x;k ijUrqq muds }kjk mDr rF;ksa dh vuns[kh djrs gq, mUga p;ueqDr fd;k x;k gS tks fof/k lEer ugha gSA vUr esa foK vf/koDrk }kjk vkosfndk ds vkosnu dks Lohd‘r djrs gq, ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh ukyUnk ds ikfjr vkns’k dks fujLr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA vkosfndk ds foK vf/koDrk dks lquus vfHkys[k ij miyC/k dkxtkrksa ds ifj’khyu ls Kkr gksrk gS fd fnukad 01-03-12 dks 11]33 cts ,daxjljk; iz[k.M vUrxZr vkaxuckM+h dsUnz la[;k 36] ubZek dk fujh{k.k cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] ,daxjljk; }kjk fd;k x;kA tkap ds dze esa dszUnz cUn ik;k x;k] vkaxuckM+h lsfodk@lgkf;dk vukf/kd‘r :i ls vuqifLFkr ik;h x;hA vkosfndk ds fo:n~/k vukf/kd‘r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSA mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ls Li"V gksrk gS fd fujh{k.k ds le; dsUnz cUn ik;s tkus] vkosfndk fcuk lwpuk ds vukf/kd‘r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgh gS ,oa muds fo:n~/k yxk;s x;s vkjksi izekf.kr gSA buds vukf/kd‘r vuqifLFkfr esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;y; esa nk;j ih0;w0lh0,y0 196@2001 esa ikfjr vkns’k dh Hkh vogsyuk gqbZ gSA lkFk gh cPpkksa dks iks’kkgkj feyus esa ck/kk mRiUu gqbZ gS rFkk Patna High Court CWJC No.1798 of 2013 (3) dt.31-07-2013 5 mijksDr lHkh vkjksiksa dh lEiqf"V gksrh gSA vr% lE;d fopkjksijkUr Jherh js.kq dqekjh] ifr jfoUnz izdk’k p;ueqDr vkaxuckM+h lsfodk ,oa js.kq dqekjh] ifr vk’khe izlkn p;ueqDr vkaxuckM+h lgkf;dk dsUnz la0 36 ubZek xzke ubZek] Fkkuk ,daxjljk; ftyk ukyUnk ds vkosnu esa dksbZ fopkjuh; fcUnq ugha ikrs gq, muds vkosnu dks vLohd‘r djrs gq, ftyk izksxzke inkf/kkdjh ukyUnk ds ikfjr vkns’k Kkikad 1875] fnukad 19]05]12 dks lEiq"V fd;k tkrk gSaA vkns’k dh izfr lHkh lacaf/kr dks HkstsA** The rest of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being taken to the private clinic of Dr. Rajendra Prasad at Ekangarsarai in the morning at 6 am on 1.3.2012 had informed the Mukhiya apart from not inspiring confidence would also not be relevant because the Mukhiya is not the prescribed authority under the Rules/guidelines to grant leave for absence to Anganbari Sevika. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)