Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 262 (PAT)

Girija Devi v. State of Bihar

2013-02-26

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2013
ORDER Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Angan Bari Sevika passed by the District Programme Oficer on 28.02.2011 and its affirmance by the District Collector, Samastipur by an order dated 26.07.2011 cannot be sustained because the petitioner was never given a copy of the inspection report of the inspecting team which had found the Centre to be closed. In this regard, it needs to be noted that the defence of the petitioner in her show cause reply that the inspecting team had visited at 8.05 a.m. on 18.12.2010 and as there was excessive cold on that date, the children had not started coming to the centre but the Centre was not closed. This explanation of the petitioner was not disbelieved by the District Programme Officer and he had not recorded that time of inspection was not 8.05 a.m. as claimed by the petitioner rather he went tangent and, in fact, came to pass an order of removal of the petitioner on an altogether different ground other than for which the show cause notice was issued to her. The District Programme officer, in fact, went to review the over all performances of the petitioner as Angan Bari Sevika and came out with a conclusion that the take home ration was not being properly distributed or other work assigned to the Angan Bari Sevika were not properly performed. That was not the scope of the show cause notice given to the petitioner by the District Programme Officer and, therefore, this Court would find that when the District Programme Officer had travelled beyond the show cause notice even without making the petitioner aware of the subsequent allegation which came to her notice in view of the report of the C.D.P.O.. The D.P.O. infact had to again issue another show cause notice for giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain those discrepancies which came to his notice on a subsequent report of the C.D.P.O. after issuance the show cause notice to the petitioner. In view of above the impugned order of the District Programme Officer has to be held had both on fact and in law and is accordingly set aside. 2. In view of above the impugned order of the District Programme Officer has to be held had both on fact and in law and is accordingly set aside. 2. In the order of the Collector, the time of inspection has been shown to be 9.45 a.m. on the same date i.e. 18.12.2010 but then as noted above, the petitioner was not given a copy of the inspection report. There is also nothing on record to show as to on what basis and on what material the Collector had come to a finding with regard to the time of inspection being 9.45 a.m. There would be a world of difference in operating of the centre at 8.05 a.m. and 9.45 a.m. and because the timing of the Centre is from 8.00 a.m. to 12.0 noon and, therefore if the children had not started coming at the Centre at 8.05 a.m. probably, the defence of the petitioner of there being excessive cold, may lead to acceptance of her explanation but if it is at 9.45 a.m. and the Centre was found to be closed by the inspection team, then the petitioner will have to give a lot of explanation for non-functioning of the Centre on the date of sudden inspection. In that view of the matter, this Court would find even the Collector of the district is bad both on facts and in law and the same is also accordingly set aside. 3. The order of the Divisional Commissioner being again based on the ground of limitation, that also is fit to be quashed. 4. As this court has quashed the impugned orders only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice the case is remitted back to the District Prgramme Officer who now shall issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the inspection report as also the report of the C.D.P.O. whereafter the petitioner will file her explanations and the matter will be disposed of afresh by the District Programme Officer after considering such explanation of the petitioner as also extending her opportunity of hearing. This exercise must be completed by the District Programe officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till this exercise is completed by the District Programme Officer, the petitioner will not be reinstated back in service. 5. This exercise must be completed by the District Programe officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till this exercise is completed by the District Programme Officer, the petitioner will not be reinstated back in service. 5. It is however made clear that irrespective of pendency of the proceeding before the District Programme Officer, the petitioner must be paid her admitted dues for the work done by her in the capacity of Angan Bari Sevika prior to the termination of her services within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. 6. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.