Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1024 (PAT)

Kiran Kumari v. State of Bihar

2013-08-20

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2013
ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by the Collector, Jamui as affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger in Miscellaneous Appeal No 14 of 2010 as contained in Annexure 10. By the aforesaid orders, petitioner’s appointment as Angan Bari Sevika for Angan Bari Centre, Gandhi Chowk, Purani Bazar, Jhajha has been cancelled. 2. It appears consequent to selection of the petitioner in August 2009, an inspection was conducted at petitioner’s centre by Central Inspection Team. It is alleged that the Inspecting Team found that the petitioner was not distributing Take Home Meal in proper quantity. They, accordingly, recommended to the Social Welfare Department for cancellation of petitioner’s appointment pursuant to which the Social Welfare Department sent the proposal to the Collector. Accordingly, the selection of petitioner was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits three grounds for challenging the order of the Collector. First, that as the Collector was to pass the order, it was incumbent upon him to issue notice to the petitioner and then, after hearing her, take a decision in the matter. In the present case, the Collector has neither issued notice to the petitioner nor heard the petitioner. Thus, the order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. He secondly submits that the allegation is totally vague and uncertain. All it says is that food was not distributed in adequate quantity. On such vague assertions, no action can be taken. He moreover points out that a reference to Annexure 7, the notification of the State Government suspending the CDPO of the area Pushpa Kumari would show that the same Inspecting Team found that the CDPO was not releasing the grains for the Take Home Meal in sufficient quantity which was impairing the distribution of Take Home Meal. If this is kept in mind how can the petitioner be blamed? The third ground is that in any view of the matter, the order is a non-speaking order. Similar attack is with regard to the appellate order. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that petitioner has preferred an appeal which has also been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner. The order has already been appended as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must be allowed. 5. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that petitioner has preferred an appeal which has also been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner. The order has already been appended as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State points out that as per the order of the Collector, notice had been issued to the petitioner under Memo No 420 dated 14.11.2009. Petitioner has annexed the aforesaid notice to the writ petition which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Clearly the said notice has been issued by the District Programme Officer and petitioner was required to show cause before the District Programme Officer. Thus, there was no notice issued by the Collector assuming jurisdiction in the matter much less requiring petitioner to show cause before him. It is elementary principle of law that a person, who hears, must decide. The notice ought to have emanated from the Collector who ultimately took the decision. On this ground alone, the order of cancellation of petitioner’s appointment and its affirmance by the Commissioner cannot be sustained. I would further like to notice that the report of the Inspecting Team itself is far to way for any action to be taken. Further, if one refers to State’s own notification dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure 7) by which the CDPO has been suspended on the allegation of restricting supplies to the Sevikas, that itself gives sufficient defence to the petitioner. State cannot shut its eyes to its own actions. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure 9 and 10 being the order of the Collector and the Commissioner in appeal are set aside. 7. It will be deemed that the petitioner is continuing as Angan Bari Sevika.