IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11218 of 2007 SARITA KUMARI @ SARITA DEVI, wife of Sanjay Ojha, resident of village Sobeyan, P. O. Dhawani, P. S.- Karakat (Gorari), District- Rohtas. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Karkat Block at P. O. Gorari, District- Rohtas. 7. Sadhu Sharan, son of name not known to the petitioner, presently working as Child Development Project Officer, Karakat Block at P. O. + P. S. – Gorari, District- Rohtas. 8. Mukhiya, Nano Gram Panchayat, village- Nano, P.O.- Dhawani, P. S. Karakat, District- Rohtas. 9. Panchayat Sewak, Nano Gram Panchayat, Village- Nano, P. O. Dhawani, P. S. Karakat, District- Rohtas. 10. Gunjan Kumari, wife of Rabindra Choubey, resident of village Sobeyan, P. O.- Dhawani, P. S. Karakat (Gorari), District- Rohtas. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 07.01.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Reference may be made to the order dated 3.12.2009, relevant portion reads as follows:- “Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this application is being filed against most illegal, wrongful and arbitrary conduct of the respondent by which even though the petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sevika in the Gram Sabha held on 28.6.2007 the respondents 2nd set due to non fulfillment of their illegal demand have deliberately 2 played fraud by way of fabricating the documents and they have appointed respondent no.10 on the post of Anganbari Sevika even though she neither belongs to the beneficiary group nor she is having higher marks in most illegal and arbitrary manner.” There is serious dispute as to whether the petitioner had filed a representation in question as contained in Annexure-1 before the Collector of the district. The definite statement of the petitioner in this regard in paragraph 13 of the writ application reads as follows:- “That in the meanwhile the petitioner came to know that respondent no.10 is ready to fulfill the illegal demand then she filed representation before the District Maistrate,Rohtas and sent a copy to the Director, ICDS on 16.7.2007 informing them of illegal demand and made request for appointing her on the post of Anganbari Sevika.” The Photo state copy of the representation filed by the petitioner before the District magistrate along with postal receipt is being annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure-1 and 1/A.” In fact Annexure-1/A is a copy of the registration receipt issued by the postal authority vide Receipt No.2957 addressed to the Collector of Rohtas district which was received by the said authority and there would be normally presumption of being served in view of its not being returned to the sender within a period of one month. Counsel for the State, 3 however, would refer to paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit sworn by one Sadhu Sharan Ram, the Child Development Project Officer, Karkat Block, Gorari in the district of Rohtas wherein it has been stated as follows:- “That statements made in paragraph no.12,13,14 of the writ petition are all incorrect, false and are denied. The statements made in para 12,13,14 of the writ petition are allegations concocted for the purpose of the writ.’ It has to be noted that no supporting documents in proof of the fact in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit has been enclosed and verification thereof has been made by the deponent C.D.P.O. as true to his knowledge. The C.D.P.O. is posted in the respective places, whereas, he is answering with regard to the representation filed in the office of the Collector and therefore his personal knowledge as being basis of his affidavit needs to be explained by him before this Court because the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit with regard such stand taken by the respondent nos. 4 to 6 in their counter affidavit has stated as follows:- “That the statement made in para 12 is absolutely incorrect, false and misleading and it shows the misconduct of the respondent no.6. From bare perusal of Annexure-1 and 1/A it will be evident that the respondent no.6 CDPO is deliberately trying to mislead this Hon’ble Court. Further despite receiving of this registered letter contained in Annexure 1 and 1/A due to obvious reasons the respondent District Magistrate and SDO have kept 4 mum although under the provisions of guidelines they were required to make enquiry into the matter.’ In that view of the matter, this Court would call upon the deponent of the counter affidavit to appear in person and file a show cause as to on what basis he could verify the fact relating to office of the Collector with regard to non receipt of the representation as contained in Annexure-1 to be prima-facie supported by the postal receipt as contained in Annexure-1/A. At the same time, Office of the Collector is now directed to verify from its receipt/signature as to whether copy of the representation as contained in Annexure-1 vide aforementioned receipt was served in his office or not. Such report will be filed by the Collector in the form of separate affidavit. The aforementioned report as also the show cause by office of the Collector and the C.D.P.O. must be completed within a period of four weeks.” Pursuant thereto, the deponent of the counter affidavit in question Sri Sadhu Saran Ram is personally present. He has filed a show-cause wherein it has been sought to be explained that whatever statement were made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit by him were based on statement of fact prepared under the joint signature of the Collector of the District- Rohtas, District Welfare Officer, Rohtas, Government Pleader, Rohtas as also by him in the capacity of Child 5 Development Project Officer, Karakat. Such explanation probably could have fully exonerated the deponent Sri Ram from any further responsibility of making a false statement as with regard to receipt of representation had it not also contained his own signature. The fact that Mr. Ram himself was one of the four signatories to the aforementioned statement of fact including the statement in paragraph 8 thereof on the basis of which the statement have been made in paragraph 13 of the counter- affidavit in question, he cannot be said to be not concerned with the statement which now admittedly even as per the respondents has been found to be incorrect. It has come on record that the representation filed by the petitioner and sent by registered post was duly received in the office of Collector on 23.7.2007 and therefore this court will have no hesitation in holding all the four officers, including deponent Mr. Ram responsible for making a false statement. Counsel for the State representing Mr. Ram would submit that deponent has since been retired from service and any action 6 taken against him would be only putting him in further jeopardy. This court taking into account the fact that the deponent Mr. Ram is no longer in service would condone his lapse though strictly speaking it was a fit case where Mr. Ram along with Collector, Rohtas, District Welfare Officer, Rohtas, Government Pleader, Rohtas were fit to be proceeded for making a false statement before this court. Be that as it may, this Court having now found that the representation filed by the petitioner was admittedly received and in fact is also claimed to have been traced out would direct the Collector of District to ensure that the same is disposed of within the period prescribed as per the latest circular of the State Government dated 10.12.2009 of course after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the representative of concerned gram panchayat. The fact that this court has found the counter affidavit to be containing false statement as noted above will not affect merits of the case of the petitioner which must be decided in the light of government circular and guideline by the Collector of 7 the District. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is finally disposed of. The personal appearance of Mr. Sadhu Saran Ram is, accordingly, dispensed with. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)