IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7708 of 2010 Malti Devi, W/o Shri Mohan Kumar, R/o vill. Mahua Singh Rai, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali…………………………………………………..……..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali. 4. Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Mahua, Vaishali. 5. Child Development Project Officer, Mahua, Vaishali…………………………………………………………....Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate For the State: Mr. A.K. Singh, A.C. to G.P. 13 2 11.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. From the order of the Commissioner, as contained in Annexure- 6, it appears that services of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the Collector has been affirmed on the ground that in the report of the Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Mahua it is reported that on the inspection held on 12.10.2007 at Centre Nos. 211 and 212, it was found that take home ration was not distributed. Learned counsel for the 2 petitioner points out that in her appeal petitioner had taken definite stand that the Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, after holding inspection on 12.10.2007, had entered a note in the inspection report that children of the petitioner’s centre were distributed Khicharhi after 12.0’clock. He submits that this specific stand of the petitioner was not verified either by the Collector or by the Commissioner and they totally relying upon the report of the Sub- Divisional Welfare Officer have cancelled her engagement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to Annexure-1 series which, according to the petitioner, is exact photo copy of the inspection register of the Sub- Divisional Welfare Officer, as well as of Child Development Project Officer, and points out that it is specifically mentioned in the register that in the inspection held at Centre 212, petitioner was found present, children were there who were awaiting to be 3 served Khicharhi and it was informed that the petitioner had distributed take home ration. If this entry in the register is correct, the report of the Sub- Divisional Welfare Officer stands completely belied. Since the petitioner has taken specific stand with regard to the entry in her favour in the inspection report, the Collector or the Commissioner ought to have called for the original register, verified the same and then only they should have looked into the report of the said Sub- Divisional Welfare Officer. The order of the Collector as well as the order of the Commissioner, therefore, stands vitiated on this ground. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The order of the Collector as contained in Annexure-2 as well as the order of the Commissioner as contained in Annexure-6 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, who shall call for the original records including the 4 inspection register of the Sub- Divisional Welfare Officer as well as of Child Development Project Officer, verify the entries and thereafter shall hear the parties and pass a speaking order in accordance with law preferably within the time limit fixed under the guidelines for disposal of such matters by the Collector. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)