IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22018 of 2011 ====================================================== Sunita Kumari, D/O Late Tarani Prasad Sah, Resident of Village-Gajipur, P.S.-Tarapur, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Munger. 3. The District Programme Officer-Cum-District Welfare Officer, Munger. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Tarapur, Munger. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Z. Haider, A.C. to G.A. 6. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 2 13-12-2011 With the consent of the learned advocates, petition is heard and decided today. The petitioner, an Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre No. 59, Gajipur-II, has challenged the order of her removal made by the District Programme Officer, Munger on 30th September 2011. Learned Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the order of removal has been made by the District Programme Officer at the dictate of the District Magistrate on the allegations which the petitioner was never called upon to answer. Mr. Kumar has submitted that the show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 2nd September 2011 indicating that the Anganbari Centre was not working regularly and that there were not more than ten children in the said Anganbari Centre. In the said Anganbari Centre children were not supplied meal regularly or the meal supplied to Patna High Court CWJC No.22018 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 2 / 3 2 the children was sub-standard. It was alleged that the fund allotted for the meals was misappropriated. The said notice was duly replied to by the petitioner. However, under the direction issued by the District Magistrate the petitioner was removed as Anganbari Sevika by the impugned order on totally different counts. Mr. Raj Kumar has relied upon the scheme framed under the Integrated Child Development Programme. He has submitted that under the scheme it is the District Programme Officer who is authorised to take action against the Anganbari Sevika and the District Magistrate is the Appellate Authority. In the present case the District Magistrate has taken decision and has issued direction to the District Programme Officer to remove the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner has also lost the right to appeal to the District Magistrate. The show cause notice dated 2nd September 2011 issued by the District Programme Officer; the direction issued by the District Magistrate on 28th September 2011 and the impugned order dated 30th September 2011 made by the District Programme Officer establish the allegations made by the petitioner. It is apparent that the impugned order dated 30th September 2011 is made pursuant to the direction issued by the District Magistrate, Munger on 28th September 2011. The impugned order has no nexus whatever with the show cause notice dated 2nd September 2011. Evidently, the District Programme Officer has abdicated his duty to make enquiry and to take decision in respect of the petitioner. The impugned order is clearly vitiated. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 30th September 2011 made by the District Patna High Court CWJC No.22018 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 3 / 3 3 Programme Officer is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the petitioner will be reinstated as Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre No. 59, Gajipur-II. For the interregnum period the petitioner will not be entitled to any relief. It is clarified that this order will not preclude the District Programme Officer from taking action against the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 2nd September 2011 for any irregularity committed by her. The parties will bear their own cost. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ)