Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 480 (PAT)

Sajda Bano v. State Of Bihar

2011-03-31

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2011
JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has been terminated from the Dhaka Centre, district Banka where she was working as an Aanganbari Sevika vide Annexure-6 dated 14.01.2008 passed by the Director of the Integrated Child Development Officer. Annexure-4, the impugned order would indicate that the Director came to know that on inspection made by the District Welfare Officer, the petitioner had not performed her duties and had not distributed the ration under the welfare scheme to women and children of more than one tola. 2. This writ application is being disposed of on the ground that the Guidelines, 2006 for the appointment of Aanganbari Sevika indicate that the Aanganbari Sevika can only be removed by the order of the District Magistrate. The Child Project Officer or any Officer can make a complaint against the nonperformance of duties of an Aanganbari Sevika or any Government servant. After such a complaint is received, there should be an enquiry. The District Magistrate will be empowered to entrust the enquiry to any Officer whom he thinks fit and proper. Where there is an allegation of non-performance of duties, such enquiry should necessarily contain the names of those persons who have made a complaint against the incumbent. On receipt of such a complaint, an opportunity has to be given to the persons against whom the complaint is made 3. Apparently, in this case, no such procedure has been followed, the Director is not empowered to pass order of dismissal. At the most, he could have referred the matter to the District Magistrate along with the enquiry report, if any, and the District Magistrate could have issued notice to the petitioner and passed an appropriate order. 4. This Court, considering the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, directs the District Magistrate, Banka to hold an enquiry after calling for the records relating to the petitioners case from the Director, Integrated Child Development Officer. Since the petitioner is represented through her Counsel before this Court, no fresh notice is required to be issued to her, however the petitioner would have the liberty to be present at the time of the enquiry. For the purpose of ensuring that the petitioner is present at the stage of holding of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer must issue notice to the petitioner informing her the date on which the enquiry will be held. For the purpose of ensuring that the petitioner is present at the stage of holding of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer must issue notice to the petitioner informing her the date on which the enquiry will be held. All these actions are to be taken by the District Magistrate, if he is prima facie satisfied by the report received from the Director that anomalies have been committed by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The State Counsel should communicate this order to the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme. 6. The order as contained in Annexure- 4 dated 27.12.2007 is quashed. 7. This Court does not have any knowledge whether after the termination of the petitioner issued in the year 2007, any other person has been appointed as Aanganbari Sevika, if any such person has been appointed as Aanganbari Sevika during the pendency of this writ application, obviously, the petitioner would not be entitled to be reinstated until the enquiry is concluded. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the enquiry should be concluded and a final order be passed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the report from the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme. This application is allowed to the extent indicated aforesaid.