This appeal was dismissed, upholding a single bench order that rejected a writ petition challenging the removal of an Anganwari Sevika. The court found the closure during inspection at 1 PM justified when the center was required to remain open until 2 PM.
The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed with no costs.
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 Letters Patent Appeal No. 530 of 2014 Arising out of
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22006 of 2012
.... ....Respondent/s / Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh & Mr. Upadhyay Saurabh Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Dr. Raj Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. 7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) Date: 23-08-2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court LPA No.530 of 2014 dt.23-08-2016
2/5
Patna High Court LPA No.530 of 2014 dt.23-08-2016
3/5
the dismissal order was without consideration of the show cause and even the appellate order has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case in their proper perspective.
Patna High Court LPA No.530 of 2014 dt.23-08-2016
4/5
centre was required to be open till 2:00 P.M. cannot be disputed as nothing has been brought on record to show that on 08.01.2011 when the inspection was made, the time to keep the centre open was not till 2:00 P.M. Whatever material has been sought to be produced before us at this stage by learned counsel for the appellant also does not conclusively prove the fact that the timing of the centre was not till 2:00 P.M. However, such material was never produced before the learned Single Bench and even what has been produced before this Court is not enough for upholding such contention on behalf of the appellant. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the order of her removal is based on the direction given by respondent no. 5 to respondent no. 4 is also erroneous, for the reason, that letter no. 648 dated 04.02.2011 of the respondent no. 5 to the respondent no. 4 (District Programme Officer) only states that, for having kept the center closed at the time when inspection was made, the appellant along with the Sahayika should be issued show cause and if sufficient and strong reasons are not found, they be removed from service. Thus, the same does not suffer from any infirmity and can in no way be taken as a mandatory direction to remove the appellant from the post held by her.
Patna High Court LPA No.530 of 2014 dt.23-08-2016
5/5
the present Letters Patent Appeal, which, accordingly, stands dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate order dismissing the writ petition and the subsequent Letters Patent Appeal suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference.
Whether the order of removal of the appellant from service was unreasonable because the inspection was conducted after the stated operating hours of the Anganwari center.
Sahodara Devi
The State of Bihar
The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna
The District Magistrate, Rohtas
The Special Officer on Duty, District (Confidential) Cell, Rohtas
The District Programme Officer, Rohtas
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
