IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC NO.3084 OF 2008
SAJDA BANO, WIFE OF BISAR ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAKA,
POLICE STATION BANKA, DISTRICT BANKA ...........................PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, BIHAR,
PATNA
3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BANKA
4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BANKA
......................................................................................RESPONDENTS
**********
2 31/03/2011 The petitioner has been terminated from the
Dhaka Centre, district Banka where she was working as an
Aanganbari Sevika vide Annexure-6 dated 14.01.2008
passed by the Director of the Integrated Child Development
Officer. Annexure-4, the impugned order would indicate
that the Director came to know that on inspection made by
the District Welfare Officer, the petitioner had not
performed her duties and had not distributed the ration
under the welfare scheme to women and children of more
than one tola.
This writ application is being disposed of on the
ground that the Guidelines, 2006 for the appointment of
Aanganbari Sevika indicate that the Aanganbari Sevika can
only be removed by the order of the District Magistrate. The
Child Project Officer or any Officer can make a complaint
against the non-performance of duties of an Aanganbari
Sevika or any Government servant. After such a complaint
is received, there should be an enquiry. The District
Magistrate will be empowered to entrust the enquiry to any
2
Officer whom he thinks fit and proper. Where there is an
allegation of non-performance of duties, such enquiry
should necessarily contain the names of those persons who
have made a complaint against the incumbent. On receipt
of such a complaint, an opportunity has to be given to the
persons against whom the complaint is made.
Apparently, in this case, no such procedure has
been followed, the Director is not empowered to pass order
of dismissal. At the most, he could have referred the matter
to the District Magistrate along with the enquiry report, if
any, and the District Magistrate could have issued notice to
the petitioner and passed an appropriate order.
This Court, considering the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, directs the District
Magistrate, Banka to hold an enquiry after calling for the
records relating to the petitioner’s case from the Director,
Integrated Child Development Officer. Since the petitioner is
represented through her Counsel before this Court, no fresh
notice is required to be issued to her, however the petitioner
would have the liberty to be present at the time of the
enquiry. For the purpose of ensuring that the petitioner is
present at the stage of holding of the enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer must issue notice to the petitioner informing her the
date on which the enquiry will be held. All these actions are
to be taken by the District Magistrate, if he is prima facie
3
satisfied by the report received from the Director that
anomalies have been committed by the petitioner.
The petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of
this order before the District Magistrate, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The State Counsel should communicate this order to the
Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme.
The order as contained in Annexure-4 dated
27.12.2007 is quashed.
This Court does not have any knowledge whether
after the termination of the petitioner issued in the year
2007, any other person has been appointed as Aanganbari
Sevika, if any such person has been appointed as
Aanganbari Sevika during the pendency of this writ
application, obviously, the petitioner would not be entitled
to be reinstated until the enquiry is concluded.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the enquiry should
be concluded and a final order be passed within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of the report from the
Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme.
This application is allowed to the extent indicated
aforesaid.
Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )