IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5229 of 2010 1. DAIZY DEVI @ DAIZY KUMARI D/O SRI LAL BABU THAKUR, W/O SRI BALISTER SINGH R/O VILL.- BATHUAHA, P.S. PAHARPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) 2. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR ESTABLISHMENT, EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) 3. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) 4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BLOCK PAHARPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) 5. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) ----------- 2/ 18/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. I.A. No.9609/10 has been filed assailing the order of the District Programme Officer dated 19.3.2010 terminating the appointment of the Angan Bari Sevika during the pendency of the writ application in pursuance of an order of the District Magistrate dated 10.2.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate never issued a show cause notice to the petitioner before arriving at any conclusion that the appointment was based on forged certificates. The District Programme Officer also did not issue any show cause notice informing the petitioner of the order of the District Magistrate to enable the petitioner to represent. It is, therefore, rightly submitted that forgery is a question of fact and there has to be a finding. The order of the District Programme Officer does not even disclose the - 2 - materials and the reasons on which the finding of forgery had been arrived at behind her back. In the absence of any discussion in the order of the District Programme Officer that the order of the District Magistrate dated 10.2.2010 had been passed after a show cause notice to the petitioner or that the District Programme Officer before issuing the impugned order dated 19.3.2010 had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Forgery being a question of fact, the order unilateral in nature, becomes unsustainable. The impugned order dated 19.3.2010 does not stand the test of law. Whatever is incorporated in the order including the order dated 10.2.2010 therefore also becomes not sustainable. Both the orders are set aside. The petitioner stands reinstated. If so advised, the respondents may proceed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and after due opportunity proceed to adjudicate the matter afresh. In view of the Division Bench judgement of this Court, the jurisdiction lay in the District Magistrate alone. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)