SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 1175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, RAJIV ROY, JJ.
Smt. Sima Devi, W/o. Sri Rajesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 991 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15305 of 2013
Decided On : 01-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjeet Tiwary.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha (Ga7).

Proper enquiry before taking disciplinary action and the need for following government guidelines in employment disputes.

Headnote:

Anganbari Sevika - Employment Dispute - FCDS/35010/1-12-956, Appointment letter dated 31.12.2014 - The court discussed the guidelines for inspection, the importance of proper enquiry before taking disciplinary action, and the need for following government guidelines. The court highlighted the errors made by the authorities in removing the appellant-petitioner on vague alleged charges without proper enquiry and not following the government guidelines. The court set aside the orders of the authorities and directed reinstatement of the appellant-petitioner with 50% salary for the period she was out of job.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-petitioner, an Anganbari Sevika, was removed from her post based on vague alleged charges without proper enquiry and not following the government guidelines. She filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned writ Court. The present appeal was filed against this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the authorities erred in removing the appellant-petitioner on vague alleged charges without proper enquiry and not following the government guidelines. The court set aside the orders of the authorities and directed reinstatement of the appellant-petitioner with 50% salary for the period she was out of job.

Issues: The issues revolved around the removal of the appellant-petitioner from her post as an Anganbari Sevika based on alleged charges without proper enquiry and not following the government guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities erred in removing the appellant-petitioner on vague alleged charges without proper enquiry and not following the government guidelines. The court emphasized the importance of proper enquiry before taking disciplinary action and the need for following government guidelines.

Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the authorities and directed reinstatement of the appellant-petitioner with 50% salary for the period she was out of job.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Roy, J.

The appellant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.6.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15305 of 2013 by which the Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

2. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present appeal is/are as follows :

3. On 26.6.2003, the appellant-petitioner was selected as ‘Anganbari Sevika’ for Anganbari centre no. 79, Dhanarua, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the centre’) vide letter no. 51 dated 26.6.2003 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Dhanarua, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the CDPO) (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

4. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that after serving for a almost decade with complete satisfaction of the officials and the beneficiaries, all of a sudden on 23.3.2012, she was served with a letter no. 557 dated 23.3.2012 by the District Programme Officer, Patna (henceforth for short ‘the DPO’) communicated to her on 28.3.2012 by which she was asked to submit a show cause on the following charges which allegedly was found by ‘the CDPO’.

    (i) the ‘halwa’ prepared at the centre was below quality;

(ii) the dry ration was not provided in required quantity;

(iii) the children were not in proper dress (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

5. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that neither the time of surprise visit nor the inspection was mentioned nor it was the case that ‘halwa’ was got tested before any government lab and a report about its substandard quality was taken note of by ‘the DPO’.

6. Further case of the appellant-petitioner was that the guidelines that was to be followed for such inspection was missing and accordingly she submitted her show-cause on 28.3.2012 itself stating therein that :

    (i) the ‘halwa’ was of good quality and in appropriate quantity;

(ii) the dry ration was distributed as per the required quantity;

(iii) the payment for the uniform was made to the parents of the children three years ago and as such the same had got torn due to such long period

(Annexure-5 to the writ petition).

7. Besides the aforesaid show cause, the appellant-petitioner also filed photo copy of distribution register of the beneficiaries in support of her show cause.

8. However, vide letter no. 350 dated 29.3.2012 ‘the CDPO’ informed the appellant-petitioner that ‘the DPO has decided to relieve her from her post with further direction to surrender one month’s amount of Rs.3150/- that was taken in advance.

(Annexure-9 to the writ petition).

9. Aggrieved, the appellant-petitioner preferred appeal vide Appeal No. 25 of 2012 which came to be dismissed by the respondent District Magistrate, Patna on 13.5.2013 holding that the order passed by ‘the DPO’ need no interference (Annexure-2 to the writ petition).

10. Still aggrieved, she preferred C.W.J.C. No. 15305 of 2020 which as stated above was dismissed on 20.6.2019 by the learned writ Court holding as under:-

    A surprise inspection was made on 22.3.2012 by the Child Development Project Officer, Dhanarua, and it was found Halwa was of sub-standared, at that time, the beneficiaries have come forward and orally stated the petitioner used to distribute less quantity of rice and Dal. As per the guidelines, 6 kg. rice and 3 kg, Dal wee to be distributed to each beneficiaries, but in stead less than half quantity of food-grain was being given to the beneficiaries. During the proceeding, the petitioner before the District Magistrate has orally accepted the charges and tendered her unconditional apology. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted by the District Programme Officer, accordingly, punishment was inflicted and the same has been affirmed by the appellate authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-5 and submitted that the chart bears the signature of beneficiaries, it is very easy to obtain the signature and thumb impression of any beneficiary under the coercion. However, when the beneficiaries hs come forward, orally stated about the short supply of food-gra

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top