IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3837 of 2010 1. SUSHILA KUMARI W/O ARBIND KUMAR R/O FAKHARPUR, P.S. ARWAL, DISTT-ARWAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, I.C.D.S.COMMISSIONAR AT OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARWAL 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ARWAL 6. THE DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER, ARWAL 7. MUKHIYA, PANCHAYAT FAKHARPUR, P.S. &DISTT-ARWAL 8. THE DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER -CUM-DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER ARWAL ----------- 02. 20.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The submission is that the order dated 7.1.2010, removing the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sewika passed by the District Magistrate, Arwal is contrary to the instruction dated 25.7.2008. The power lay in the District Programme Officer to remove for any deficiency in service when the District Magistrate is the appellate authority. The original orders passed by the appellate authority deprives the petitioner of the forum of appeal. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order of removal was passed after compliance with the principles of natural justice. This Court upholds the submission of the petitioner, that if the original order has been passed by 2 the appellate authority himself, the petitioner has been deprived of the remedy of appeal. The aforesaid discussion is reinforced by the decision of the Supreme Court in (2006) 4 SCC 348, at pragraph 18 (A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General) is as follows:- “18. It is now trite that an authority higher than the appointing authority would also be the designated authority for the purpose of Article 311 of the Constitution. Even the Appellate Authority can impose a punishment subject, of course, to the condition that by reason thereof the delinquent officer should not be deprived of a right of appeal in view of the fact that the right of appeal is a statutory right. However, if such right of appeal is not embellished, an authority higher than the appointing authority may also act as a disciplinary authority.” The order dated 7.1.2010 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Programme Officer, who shall proceed to issue notice to the petitioner and decide matter afresh in accordance with law. The application stands allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)