In Pratima Kumari vs. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna, Justice Partha Sarthy of Patna High Court delivered a 6-page long judgement dated December 23, 2025 wherein. he restored the job of Pratima Kumari, Anganwadi Sevika and sets aside orders by District Programme Officer (D.P.O.), Nalanda, DM, Nalanda and Commissioner, Patna Division. The petitioner had filed the application for quashing the order of 2011 passed by the D.P.O., Nalanda whereby the petitioner’s service as an Anganwadi Sevika at Centre no.95, Mahadev Bigha, block- Noorsarai in the district of Nalanda was terminated. She had also prayed for quashing the order dated May 10, 012 passed in Miscellaneous Anganwadi Case no.50 of 2011 whereby the District Magistrate, Nalanda was had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and for quashing the order by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna who had dismissed the appeal/revision filed by the petitioner.
The petitioner being fully eligible, she was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika in 1992. She performed her duties to the satisfaction of all concerned and there was no complaint against her. It was the case of the petitioner that on August 16, 2011, as a result of certain medical exigency of having felt severe stomach pain, the petitioner sent an application for leave to the concerned Ward Member and proceeded for treatment. On her return it transpired that the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Noorsarai, Nalanda had come to her Centre for inspection. The absence of the petitioner was reported by the C.D.P.O. to the D.P.O., Nalanda. The report also incorrectly stated that the distribution of Take Home Ration (THR) was not taking place in a regular manner nor was the Anganwadi Centre being run properly.
A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which she replied and also appeared in person and explained that the Take Home Ration had been distributed to the beneficiaries. But the D.P.O., Nalanda removed the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Sevika.
Justice Sarthy observed that the show-cause notice which mentions about the allegations/charges was quite vague. There was no statement naming the witnesses who were said to have made the complaint against the petitioner. There was merely an allegation of the Centre not being run properly nor Take Home Ration being distributed in a regular manner without proof of any sort. The order by D.P.O., Nalanda was also absolutely vague, cryptic and lacked in material details as to what was found or what allegations proved against the petitioner. Neither the contents of the enquiry report was dealt with, nor were there details as to who conducted the said enquiry or as to who all were examined and what statement they gave against the petitioner. The order by the District Magistrate, Nalanda and the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna was also vague. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna proceeded on the premise that even if the petitioner fell ill, she should have subsequently got her leave for the day sanctioned by sending an application in the Office of the C.D.P.O. The action of the authorities terminating the service of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Sevika for her absence on a single date can only be said to be disproportionate.
He noted that it was under similar circumstances that the relief was granted by order dated October 11, 2017 to the petitioner therein in CWJC no.5539 of 2014.
Justice Sarthy concluded:"14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the orders impugned are not sustainable. 15. The order dated 22.9.2011 (Annexure-7) of the D.P.O., Nalanda, order dated 10.5.2012 (Annexure-9) of the District Magistrate, Nalanda and the order dated 18.4.2013/31.7.2013 (Annexure-10) of the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna are all set aside. 16. The petitioner will be restored to her position as an Anganwadi Sevika within a period of three months, however as in the meantime the respondent no.7 was working in the said capacity at the said Anganwadi Centre, the petitioner will not be entitled for the arrears of salary. 17. The writ application stands allowed."
The six other respondents were: Director, Integrated Child Development Services (Social Welfare Department), Bihar, Patna, Commissioner, Patna Division, District Magistrate, Nalanda, District Programme Officer, Nalanda, Child Development Project Officer, Noorsarai, Nalanda and Mamta Kumari posted on Anganwari Centre, Mahadev Bigha, Panchayat Nadiauna, Block Noor Sarai, District- Nalanda.
... ...
No comments:
Post a Comment