Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 696 (PAT)

Bijaya Lakshmi Devi v. State of Bihar

2006-08-09

body2006
ORDER Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Jha, learned, counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C to S.C. No. 21. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter bearing No. 196 dated 11.10.2004 issued by the respondent No.4 Child Development Project Officer, Sangrampur, by which the selection of the petitioner as an 'Anganbari Sevika' has been cancelled aside in view of the order contained in Memo No. 546 dated 28.9.2004 of the Deputy Director, Welfare, Munger. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice as no show caused .notice has been received by the petitioner nor she was heard when the order was passed. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the letter dated 23.9.1999 issued by the Director, Social Welfare, in which a reference has been made to the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11103 of 1997, Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors and it is stated that this Court held that merely by asking an explanation the appointment of an Anganbari Sevika cannot be cancelled and there should also be regular enquiry into the charges framed and if the charges and found to be correct then the selection of Anganbari Sevika may be cancelled. Learned counsel submits that there has been a cross violation of law laid down in the said case and the direction issued by the Director, Social Welfare in the said letter in the present matter. 4. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director, Welfare, is not a competent authority for passing an order cancelling the selection/appointment of the Anganbari Sevika as the power is vested exclusively in the Director, I.C.D.C. 5. Learned counsel for the State refers to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit from which it appears that show cause notice has been issued on several dates to the petitioner but she deliberately did not choose to reply the same and, thus, he contends that there is no violation of principle of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel for the State refers to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit from which it appears that show cause notice has been issued on several dates to the petitioner but she deliberately did not choose to reply the same and, thus, he contends that there is no violation of principle of natural justice. 6. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it has to be held that the order is not only beyond the competence of the authority who has passed the order, as admitted by the learned counsel for the State, in view of the guidelines issued in this regard by the State Government on 13.9.1998 as well as recent guidelines dated 27.6.2005 under which the Director, I.C.D.C. is the competent authority to pass any such order. Moreover, merely by issuing a show cause appointment/selection of Anganbari Sevika cannot be cancelled and there is nothing on record to show that on failure of the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause any publication has been made in the news paper in this regard. Further even thereafter the charges ought to have been framed and the order on the basis of the enquiry report could have been passed thereafter as per the requirements of law stated in the letter dated 27.9.1999 of the Director, Social Welfare, in terms of the decision of this Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this writ application is allowed, the impugned letter dated 11.10.2004 and order dated 28.9.2004 are quashed and the matter is remanded to the authorities to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.