IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4744 of 2008 SMT.RAJKUMARI DEVI & ORS W i t h CWJC No.4075 of 2008 SMT.MEENA ROY &ORS W i t h CWJC No.4590 of 2008 MRS.SARITA KUMARI & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 6/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2008 issued by the Director, I.C.D.S. terminating their services as Angan Bari Sevikas and the consequent direction issued by the District Magistrate dated 11.1.2008 initiating process for fresh appointment in view of the termination of the services of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the authority competent to terminate the services of the petitioners under the guidelines issued by the State Government bearing No. I.C.D.S.(D) 2783 dated 3.10.2006 was the District Magistrate alone. If the Director, I.C.D.S. had issued a show cause when the petitioners had denied the allegations, the reply submitted by the petitioners was required to be considered by the District Magistrate alone who could pass the necessary orders thereafter in exercise of powers under Clause-10. The Director, I.C.D.S. was not competent to pass orders of termination of the petitioners. It is for that reason that there is a provision for filing of an appeal against an order of termination passed by the District Magistrate. To allow the Director, I.C.D.S. to have the - 2 - powers of termination shall defeat the remedy of appeal available to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State controverts the submissions to urge that apart from the District Magistrate, the Director, I.C.D.S. also had such powers of termination after giving opportunity to those concerned and which has been provided to the petitioners when they have filed their show cause also. An F.I.R. had also been lodged in which a forensic examination of the concerned registers had also been done and the thumb impressions in the register for upliftment of food grains were of one person only to suggest fraudulent upliftment in collusion with Angan Bari Sevikas. Reading Clause Nos.10 and 11 of the ‘2006 Guidelines’ a proposal for termination of services of an Angan Bari Sevika may originate either from an authority subordinate to the District Magistrate or at the Secretariat level. If the proposal is from an authority subordinate to the District Magistrate, under Clause-10 thereof the matter is to be placed before the District Magistrate who would then examine the matter and pass final orders after hearing the concerned persons. An appeal lies against such order before the Commissioner under Clause-11(k). Clause-11(kh) provides that apart from the District Magistrate the power of termination shall also vest in the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Social Welfare Department and the Director, I.C.D.S. They shall , however, be obliged to enquire into the matter before passing orders of termination and issue directions in that regard to the District Magistrate when the formal - 3 - orders for termination shall be issued by the latter. When that is what the guidelines provide in clear language obviating the remedy of an appeal in certain circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to read it otherwise. The jurisdiction to interfere shall arise only on arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, and not otherwise. In any event, when the power is vested in a higher authority superior to the District Magistrate, it has been held by the Courts that there shall be a presumption of proper exercise by superior officials, unless in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, it is shown to be otherwise. The present is not one such case calling for interference. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations are of improper distribution of food grains to the beneficiaries. The Director, I.C.D.S. has issued a show cause to which the petitioners have filed their reply also. Additionally, it also notices certain forensic reports in the F.I.R. stated to have been lodged. In that background the contention of the petitioners that they have not been associated with any enquiry or any copies of the enquiry report have not been supplied to them does not impress this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in a judgement reported in 2002(2) P.L.J.R. 833 (Smt. Sajjan Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) in context of termination of services of Angan Bari Sevika after issuance of a show cause notice to that effect has noticed at paragraphs- 11,12,13,14 and 15 as follows:- 11. The first question to be considered is as to whether the engagement of Anganbari Sewika is an engagement on a post in the - 4 - Government service. If their engagements are on the posts in the Government service and they have been appointed following a procedure, in that case their engagements cannot be cancelled on the ground of misconduct without holding a departmental enquiry as provided under the Rules. If in case, they are not holding a post in the Government service and their engagements are on the basis of contract of a service under a Scheme, then their services can be terminated in terms of the agreement after following a procedure consistent with the requirement of principle of natural justice. 12. The Scheme has been made to provide help to the poor and downtrodden persons covered by the Scheme as stated above. Engagement is made only by holding an interview and no payment of salary is being made nor the appointment is being made against any post in the Government service. Honorarium is paid for performing the duties for a particular period. In case, their services are not found satisfactory, they can be removed from the post of Anganbari Sewika. Term of appointment clearly shows that they are not engaged in Government service nor are they holding any post in the Government Service, having umbrella of protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In case, it is found that they are not performing duties, for which they were engaged, then in terms of the engagement letter they can be removed. They cannot claim initiation of a regular departmental enquiry prior to their disengagement. 13. Thus, the post of Anganbari Sewika is not a post in the Government service and as such the private respondents cannot claim protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 14. It appears from the record that inspections were held several times and the private respondents were found absent from their duties. It was also found that while on duty, they did not discharge their duties, for which they were engaged and, thereafter, show cause notices were served upon them and they did not file any show cause and, thereafter, their engagements were cancelled. 15. Requirement of principle of natural justice has been complied with and as they are not - 5 - in Government service, they cannot claim a regular proceeding prior to disengagement, or removal by treating the aforesaid act as misconduct. Even alternatively it is assumed that they were on temporary employment in the Government service then also it is found that the authorities after having taken into consideration their past conduct as a motive and after giving an opportunity of hearing to them have disengaged them and as such they cannot claim any infirmity in their disengagement on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. More recently, the Supreme Court in a recent judgement reported in 2007(11) SCC 681 (STATE OF KARNATAKA versus AMEERBI AND OTHERS) has held likewise that Anganbari Sevikas are not Government employees holding civil posts. It is trite law that natural justice is not an unruly horse running over every terrain. What it shall connote will depend on the facts of each case. In the given facts and circumstances the principles of natural justice have been complied with. A social welfare scheme is sought to be implemented by the Government. The manner and satisfaction of the implementation is of the Government and not of the Court. If those whom the Government had selected as its emissaries to implement the Government welfare scheme do not live up to the expectations and the Government is satisfied that the implementation of the scheme is being hindered because of them, there shall be little occasion for this Court to interfere. It may also be noted that there are no statutory rules governing appointment and termination of Angan Bari Sevikas. The appointments essentially being contractual in nature to subsist till the satisfaction of the Government of proper - 6 - discharge of duties, the satisfaction that the guidelines had been violated was sufficient after compliance with the principles of natural justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no merit in these writ applications. They are accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )