IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10290 of 2011 Sunita Devi WIFE OF MUNNA KUMAR YADAV RESIDENT OF PIPRA KHAS, P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2 09/09/2011 An inspection was carried out of various Angan Bari centres in Hathwa Prakhand in presence of the District Magistrate. The District Programme Officer was also present along with the District Magistrate in that inspection. The infirmities which emerged during the course of inspection in relation to various centres emerges from perusal of annexure-3 or annexure-10 which happened to be the same document, though addressed to two different functionaries, namely, the Child Development Project Officer of Hathwa and the District Programme Officer, Gopalganj. Show cause was asked for. The District Programme Officer did not find the show cause of the petitioner satisfactory and as such an order for deduction of her ten days remuneration was made. However, it seems that on a firmer view taken by the District Magistrate, annexure-8 dated 25.04.2011 came to be issued terminating the petitioner from the post - 2 - of Angan Bari Sevika. Annexure-8 is under challenge in the present writ application. The primary submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the Child Development Project Officer had no authority to issue any letter of termination of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines or the policy laid down by the State government in the Circular which was notified in the year 2010. Part of that circular has been extracted and annexed as annexure-9 to this writ application. As per 2010 guidelines, power to take action against the Sevika or Sahayika is vested in the District Programme officer, who is supposed to give an opportunity of hearing to the persons so accused and, thereafter pass a speaking order. There is a provision for appeal as well as revision before the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner respectively. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the said circular contained in annexure-9 where power of the District Magistrate to carry out inspection has not been denied but even then when it comes down to removal or action of such kind, it has to be taken by the District Programme Officer alone. In the scheme of things, the - 3 - Child Development Project officer has no role to play. Learned counsel representing the State submits that annexure-8 is the fall out of inspection carried out and irregularities emerging from that inspection. It may be a communication made by the Child Development Project Officer to the petitioner as to the final decision, but the court is at a loss that even if it is an order of communication, there has to be an order of removal which has to be passed by the competent authority who is none else but the District Programme Officer. Since there is nothing on the record to show that the District Programme Officer has taken a decision to terminate the petitioner or removal from the post, the inspection report of the District Magistrate may not be enough to allow the Child Development Project Officer to remove the petitioner from the post. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also annexed a decision taken by the District Programme Officer after the show cause which is annexure-6 in which for the same misdemeanor, deduction of ten days remuneration of the petitioner was directed to be made and the matter was allowed to rest. To that extent, there - 4 - was no occasion for the Child Development Project Officer to issue an order of termination contained in annexure-8. The contention or the stand taken by the petitioner with regard to the validity of annexure-8 seems to be correct. The same not being in consonance with the procedure laid down or the guidelines issued by the State government in 2010 circular, annexure-8 will have to be quashed and the writ application allowed. Accordingly, annexure-8 is quashed and this writ application is allowed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)