This Court allowed the writ petition of an Anganwari Sevika who was terminated without being heard. The impugned order violating the 2004 BLJR precedent was set aside.
The impugned order dated 9.11.2009 is set aside and the writ application is allowed without prejudice to the rights of the respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1874 of 2010
1. ANITA DEVI W/O RAMKRIPAL PASWAN R/O VILL & P.O. BHAGWATPUR, P.S.
SARAI RANJAN, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT TERMINATED SEWIKA GRAM
PANCHAYAT RAJ BHAGWATPUR, AAGANBARI CENTRE NO. 165, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR
4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR BHU.HA, CUM-SENIOR OFFICER, DISTRICT PUBLIC COMPLAINT CELL, SAMASTIPUR
5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SARAI RANJAN, SAMASTIPUR
6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER SARAI RANJAN, SAMASTIPUR
7. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BHAGWATPUR, SARAI RANJAN, SAMASTIPUR
8. DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER (I.C.D.S.) CELL SAMASTIPUR
-----------Counsel for the State.
The petitioner, an Anganwari Sevika, at Centre No. 165 Sarairanjan, District Samastipur, is aggrieved by order dated 9.11.2009 of the District Magistrate terminating her services on
the alleged ground of deficiency in service.
The impugned order of rejection with reference to the instructions dated 10.10.2007. 6.11.2007 and 15.5.2009 of the I.C.D.S. Directorate spells out that the District Magistrate did not consider it necessary to hear the petitioner before terminating her services.
Counsel for the State opposing the application submits that there were allegations against the petitioner of improper discharge of duties.
At this stage the Court is not concerned with the nature of the allegation much less whether the petitioner would have a defence or not and whether her defence would be acceptable or not. At this stage this Court is only concerned with the propriety
of procedure and not what may be the possible decision after compliance of procedures.
The impugned order dated 9.11.2009 is in teeth of the Division Bench order of this Court reported in 2004(3) BLJR 8333. The order dated 9.11.2009 is set aside and the writ application stands allowed without prejudice to the rights of the respondents.
Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination order was in violation of mandatory procedure requiring a hearing before termination of services.
Whether the order dated 9.11.2009 contravened the Division Bench order in 2004(3) BLJR 8333.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2004(3) BLJR 8333Relied on¶21
2004(3) BLJR 8333
Anita Devi W/O Ramkropal Paswan
The State of Bihar
Director, I.C.D.S. Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
The District Magistrate Samastipur
The Additional Collector Bhu.Ha, Cum-Senior Officer, District Public Complaint Cell, Samastipur
Block Development Officer Sarai Ranjan, Samastipur
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court