Sumitra Devi vs The State of Bihar

Vijayendra Nath, J.—Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. The pleadings are complete and with the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of by this judgment and order at this stage.

The petitioner''s engagement as Anganwari Sevika at the concerned centre has been terminated by the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the respondent-District Programme Officer, Jehanabad (Annexure-2) and affirmed by the respondent-District Magistrate as appellate authority by his order dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure-1).

From the factual expose'', it appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.04.2012 for the alleged irregularities found at the concerned centre where the petitioner was Sevika. It further transpires that another show cause notice was issued on 23.05.2012 for the alleged irregularities found and reported by the Lady Supervisor after the inspection on 12.05.2012 of the concerned centre. The order dated 31.05.2012 reflects that the same has been passed on the basis of the show cause notice issued on 23.05.2012 for the irregularities found in the inspection dated 12.05.2012. It is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no order has been passed with regard to earlier show cause notice issued on 03.04.2012 for the alleged irregularities found during the inspection on 24.03.2012.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has made solitary submission that the appellate authority has relied on the allegations and materials which were extraneous to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner and there was no occasion for the petitioner to reply and submit her explanations in that regard.

It appears that this matter was earlier heard and by order dated 31.01.2013, the State-respondents were directed to file counter affidavit with regard to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the show cause notice was not issued with regard to all the allegations on the basis of which the order for termination of the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika has been passed.

A counter affidavit, thereafter, has been filed on behalf of the State-respondents. However, it has been accepted by the learned counsel for the State-respondents that there is no specific statement in reply as to whether the show cause notice to the petitioner was issued with regard to all the allegations as reflected from the order passed by the appellate authority and made basis for upholding the termination of her engagement as Sevika.

After careful consideration of the matter and the submissions on behalf of the parties, it is limpid, therefore, that the order for termination of the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika has been passed on the basis of those allegations also for which no show cause notice was issued. The petitioner, therefore, has been denied the opportunity to explain the charges/allegations against her and the order for termination of her engagement has, thus, been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the order passed by the respondent appellate authority as contained in annexure-1 and remit the matter back to the said authority for hearing afresh after granting the opportunity to the petitioner for placing her defence/explanation. It will also be required that a fresh show cause notice be issued or the copy of the materials which are sought to be relied against the petitioner be served upon the petitioner and opportunity of hearing, thereafter, be granted. The said authority is enjoined to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of this order. The reinstatement of the petitioner shall abide by the order passed by the said authority.

This writ application is disposed of with aforesaid direction.