IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3289 of 2008 LALITA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF SRI BALDEO PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAWARBIGHA, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. 4. MALTI DEVI, MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT NAWA, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. ---- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :- Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. K.P. Gupta, S.C. 5 ----------- 2 5.4.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that she has been removed from the post of Aanganbari Sevika posted in the Centre Nawa II, Tola Sabal Bigha within the block Bodh Gaya on the ground that she has produced a false certificate of the Mukhiya to say that she is living separately from her husband for the past two years. The District Magistrate, Gaya had got the matter enquired by the Block Development Officer, Bodh Gaya who has apparently stated that the lady was living with her husband and as such the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Aanganbari Sevika. Undoubtedly, forgery vitiates all acts. At the same time, it would be necessary that the statements of the person who have reported adverse to the petitioner should be recorded. It would also be important to record the statement of the Mukhiya who is supposedly issued the certificate and also take down the statement of the husband of the petitioner who is purportedly living in the same village. 2 Considering the circumstances aforesaid, I direct that a fresh enquiry should be conducted by taking down the evidence of all the persons who have been examined for the purposes of determining whether the petitioner is separated from her husband or not and thereafter decision should be taken by the District Magistrate, Gaya regarding this aspect of the matter. This Court is aware of the fact that there is a right of appeal against the order of the District Magistrate, Gaya. However, since there is procedural defect in the conduct of the enquiry, it would be proper to remand the matter to the District Magistrate, Gaya. It would be proper to issue notice to the new incumbent, if any, as it may affect her career if it is found that the enquiry report does not substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Gaya within a period of four weeks. The District Magistrate, Gaya should hold and conclude the enquiry within a period of four months on receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner should co-operate in this matter. The reinstatement of the petitioner would depend on the out come of the enquiry. In the result, I quash Annexure-4, dated 21.8.2007. This writ application is thus, allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)