Kamni Kaushal vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order, dated 18.11.2011/07.12.2011 (Annexure 1), passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya. The District

Magistrate dismissed the appeal preferred against the order, dated 09.05.2011, passed by the District Programme Officer, Gaya, by which the service

of the petitioner is cancelled from the post of Aganbari Sevika.

The petitioner was working as Aganbari Sevika at Center no. 8, Bitho Sharif, Chandauti, Gaya. The Minister, Social Welfare, Government of Bihar,

inspected the Center of the petitioner on 15.02.2011 and found certain irregularities. The petitioner was asked upon to show cause about the

irregularities found in running Aganbari Center vide letter, as contained in Memo No. 157, dated 11.04.2011.

The petitioner gave her detailed reply on 25.04.2011 (Annexure 11). The District Programme Officer cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on

the basis of the recommendation made by the Child Development Programme Officer, Gaya Rural, Gaya, vide order, dated 06.05.2011, as contained

in Memo No. 663 (Annexure 2). The petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, Gaya, being Appeal No. 19 of 2011 and the Collector also

dismissed the appeal on 07.12.2011, as contained in Annexure 1.

The petitioner also preferred revision/appeal before the Commissioner, Magadh Range, Gaya, and the Deputy Director, Welfare, Magadh Division,

Gaya, held that the appeal is not maintainable because the appeal of the petitioner preferred before the Collector has already been disposed off.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the notice, as contained in Memo No. 157, dated 11.04.2011, it would appear that

the authority simply asked the petitioner to show cause, but, no specific irregularity was pointed out in the aforesaid letter. The letter simply says that

on 15.02.2011 at 12.40 P.M., the Minister, Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, inspected the Aganbari Center, situated at Bitho Sharif, Koiri Tola,

Gaya, along with District Programme Officer, Gaya, and Child Development Programme Officer, Gaya Rural, Gaya, and found that Take Home

Ration (THR) was not distributed among the beneficiaries, but, the petitioner gave her detailed reply that at the time of inspection of Angan Bari

Center she had already distributed THR to fifty beneficiaries and only six beneficiaries remained to be given THR. The petitioner also disclosed that it

is quite natural that some persons complained of non-supply of THR, but, they made complaint only because their names did not appear in the list of

beneficiaries. It is submitted that neither the District Programme Officer nor the Collector, Gaya, perused the show cause of the petitioner and passed

the order without assigning any reason. The orders of the District Programme Officer and the Collector, Gaya, do not reflect at all that they

considered the show cause of the petitioner and, therefore, both the orders are palpably illegal.

Of course, the learned counsel for the State tried to persuade this Court that many irregularities were found at the time of inspection and the State

has stated in the counter affidavit that THR is distributed after twelve noon and it continues till all the beneficiaries got Take Home Ration (THR)

from Anganbari Center, but, when the learned counsel for the State was asked to show from the show cause notice, which does not state the

irregularities found during the course of inspection, he could not be able to satisfy the Court. The show cause notice, itself, appears to be vague

although the petitioner gave her detailed reply that no irregularity was found, but, even then without assigning any cogent reason, the District

Programme Officer, Gaya, and the Collector, Gaya, terminated the service of the petitioner from the post of Aganbari Sevika of Center no. 8, Bitho

Sharif, Chandauti, Gaya, and both the orders do not reflect that the show cause filed by the petitioner was at all taken into consideration, therefore,

both the orders in my view, is illegal and based on non-est ground.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order, dated 18.11.2011/07.12.2011 (Annexure 1), passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya, and the

order, dated 09.05.2011 (Annexure 2), passed by the District Programme Officer, Gaya, are set aside.