Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the removal of an Anganwari Sewika. The court held that since principles of natural justice were not violated as the reviewing authority provided a full hearing, no intervention was required.
Writ petition dismissed; no further review required as natural justice principles were followed.
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 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20276 of 2012
====================================================== Pushpa Kumari, W/o Shri Nand Lal Kushawaha R/o Village Udiyanpur, P.O- Akoti, Block- Zeeradei, P.S- Mairwa, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Director I.C.D.S. Bihar, Patna. 2. The Assistant Director, I.C.D.S. Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Siwan 4. The District Program Officer, Siwan. 5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer. 6. The Child Development Officer, Zeeradei, Siwan. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.C. to GP-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 4 23-01-2014 The primary submission or contention of the counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of the District Programme Officer as well as the appellate authority is a proposition laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in {1999 (1) BLJ 548}. In the said Division Bench decision, the proposition laid down was that if there was infirmity which emerged in the decision of the licencing authority, which could be a case of non-application of mind, that cannot be cured in the original order of the licencing authority at the appellate or revisional stage. The entire decision suffers from the same vice and is required to be interfered with.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20276 of 2012 (4) dt.23-01-2014
2/4
Petitioner draws analogy by urging in the writ application that even though a show cause was filed by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-3, the District Programme Officer in his decision, contained in Annexure-2, has recorded that there was no receipt of the show cause issued to the petitioner meaning thereby the petitioner has nothing to offer. Annexure-3 is the receipt that the petitioner had filed her show cause which was received on 3.1.2012. What is the authenticity of Annexure-3 is not required to be gone into but a detailed kind of order was passed by the District Magistrate in the so-called appeal filed by the petitioner.
If the order of the District Programme Officer was solely under challenge, there could have been an occasion for this Court to, may be, interfere even otherwise. However, the adjudication did not remain at that. Petitioner has been provided an additional forum in terms of the guidelines for such selection and removal of Anganwari Sevika. Annexure-4 is the decision of the Collector. This is basically review of the decision of the administrative authority, namely, the District Programme Officer. It is not strictly an order under appeal which the petitioner would like this Court to believe in, it is a kind of administrative review of a decision taken by a subordinate authority with a object and
Patna High Court CWJC No.20276 of 2012 (4) dt.23-01-2014
3/4
finding about as to what has been decided suffers from any serious omission or not.
A reading of the decision rendered in Annexure-4 of the Collector would show that the petitioner had been given a full-fledged hearing with all the opportunity of an origin which was denied to the petitioner, may be, before the original authority. The object and purpose for providing the forum of such appeal is limited in its ambit as well as power. If the petitioner had been given as good a chance as an original hearing by the Collector, a superior authority, who has considered the matter and came to a considered opinion that the omission committed by the petitioner required her removal from the post. The analogy which the petitioner wants to draw from the Division Bench decision, cannot apply to her since the Division Bench decision was based on a statutory provision of law which is not a case in the present writ application. Selection of the petitioner as an Anganwari Sewika is not under any law, statute or enactment but by an administrative decision which anyway the Courts have held are not interfereable through a writ Court. The maximum a writ Court can do is to look into the matter whether the principles of natural justice have been followed or not. Since it is not a case of violation of principle of natural justice in the present case, as
Patna High Court CWJC No.20276 of 2012 (4) dt.23-01-2014
4/4
would be evident from the reading of Annexure-4, no further review of the said decision is required. So far as non-furnishing of enquiry report etc. is concerned and that is integral part of hearing which was given to the petitioner, petitioner is not a Government servant that all the C.C.S.(C.C.A.) Rules are going to be made applicable to her for such omission.
Writ is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
Pawan/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the removal of an Anganwari Sewika when a full hearing was provided by the reviewing authority.
Whether an administrative decision regarding the removal of an Anganwari Sewika is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Whether the omission regarding a show-cause receipt can be ground for interference when the appellate authority recorded a reasoned finding.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶2
M/s Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in {1999 (1) BLJ 548}
Pushpa Kumari
The State of Bihar through the Director I.C.D.S. Bihar
The Assistant Director, I.C.D.S. Bihar, Patna
The District Magistrate, Siwan
The District Program Officer, Siwan
The District Panchayat Raj Officer
AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
