Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 978 (PAT)

Shanti Devi v. State Of Bihar

2005-11-10

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 30.9.1999 passed by the Director, Welfare, contained in Annexure 1, whereby and whereunder her appointment as Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled from the date of issuance of the said order (Annexure 1) and, further, the Child Development Project Officer, Kudra has been directed to make selection of Anganwari Sevika in the said Centre by following the procedure prescribed in letter no. 1129 dated 13th June, 1998. The said order has been passed after giving show cause notice to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as it is vague and the petitioner was never supplied with the copy of the enquiry report, which has deprived her of reasonable opportunity of defending her appointment. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the officials of the State, namely, the District Magistrate and the Child Development Programme Officer, Kaimur, Bhabhua (respondents no. 5 and 8, respectively). In the said counter affidavit it is stated that the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika for Jagdishpur Anganwari Centre was not proper and, therefore, it has been cancelled vide Annexure 1. In paragraph 4 it is stated that an enquiry was made in selection of Anganwari Sevika in respect of the petitioner. Assistant Director (Dinbandhu) made the enquiry and submitted report and recommended for cancellation as selection was not proper and legal. A copy of the said report dated 24.8.1998 has been annexed as Annexure A. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail the correctness of the finding recorded by the Assistant Director. He, however, contended that before the enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Director, an enquiry was also conducted by the District Welfare Officer, who submitted his report on 25.6.1997, contained in Annexure 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the said report, the District Welfare Officer on enquiry found that the appointment of Anganwari Sevikas mentioned therein is valid. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the said report, the petitioner was sent for training, vide Annexure 6, and thus the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Director is not correct. 6. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the said report, the petitioner was sent for training, vide Annexure 6, and thus the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Director is not correct. 6. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Annexure 5 is not the enquiry report. It is true that at the. top of the said document it is mentioned that on enquiry of the complaint, but he gave a list of those who were recommended for appointment as Anganwari Sewikas and the name of the petitioner finds place at serial no. 17. 7. In any view of the matter, later the enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Director, who submitted his report on 24.8.1998, vide Annexure A. In my opinion, for conducting fact finding enquiry, a person is only entitled for a show cause notice and not that Defore passing final order, he must be served with the copy of the enquiry report. It is not disciplinary proceeding where as per Rules 55 and 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, the enquiry report is to be supplied and a second show cause notice is to be given to the delinquent before passing of the final order. 8. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail the correctness of the finding recorded by the Assistant Director (Annexure A), i do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.