Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 798 (PAT)

Priyanka Kumari v. State of Bihar

2013-07-11

RAVI RANJAN

body2013
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner, who was working as Anganbari Sevika, seeks quashing of the order dated 24.4.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul, by which she has been removed/terminated from such post. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been clearly reflected from the show cause notice dated 26.11.2011 (Annexure-1) that inspection was done on 15.9.2011 at 1.04 P.M. In the reply to the show cause notice, it has been stated by the petitioner that the Anganbari Centre remains open till 1 P.M. only, thus, since the inspection was being made after the time of closure, the beneficiaries were not present. However, the District Programme Officer has stated in the order that it is very doubtful that all the boys would have gone immediately after the time of closure at about 1.04 P.M and none of them would be available. Learned counsel further submits that apart from the aforesaid, two more charges have been indicated in the show cause notice. One is that the THR was not being distributed and another is that the weight of the THR being distributed was on lesser side. Thus, THR was not being distributed in accordance with the fixed parameters which has been fixed for the said purpose. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the charges are contrary to each other. If the THR was not being distributed at all then there would be no question of its distribution in lesser amount. However, nothing has been recorded by the District Programme Officer on this issue as he has passed the impugned order only on the basis of doubt that all the beneficiaries could not have gone immediately after the closure time at 1 P.M. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 defending the action taken by the authority. However, learned counsel for the State has not been able to show from the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 that anything has been recorded regarding the non distribution etc. of THR. The order appears to have been passed only on the ground that the beneficiaries (children) were not found present at the time of inspection raising doubt over the explanation submitted by the petitioner that after the time of closure at 1 P.M. the children had already left. 6. of THR. The order appears to have been passed only on the ground that the beneficiaries (children) were not found present at the time of inspection raising doubt over the explanation submitted by the petitioner that after the time of closure at 1 P.M. the children had already left. 6. In my considered opinion, this order cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner has been removed/terminated only on the basis of certain doubt which was there in the mind of the authority. Admittedly, the inspection was made after the closure time of the centre. The authorities cannot presume that in case the children were not there after the closure time they would not have come to the centre at all specially when in the attendance register their presence has been marked. No proper enquiry appears to have been made in this regard for reaching to such conclusion. That apart, there is no finding as to whether the petitioner had distributed THR or not. It is not stated whether the Stock Register was seen or examined or not either by the Enquiry Officer or by the District Programme Officer prior to passing of the impugned order. 7. In above view of the matter, this writ application succeeds and the impugned order 24.4.2012 as well as the appellate order dated 24.7.2012 upholding the order of the District Programme Officer are quashed and set aside in view of further fact that it also suffers from the same error which has been detected in the order passed by the District Programme Officer.