Pinki Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3865 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Pinki Kumari Wife Of Radha Raman Resident Of Village - Mahuli, Police Station - Parsa, Buxar, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Welfare Department

2. District Magistrate, Patna

3. District Programme Officer, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. VIJAY ANAND For the Respondent/s : Mr. AJAY BIHARI SINHA =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-08-2017 Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna in Aanganwari Case No. 173 of 2012 contained in Memo No. 1439 (Annexure-4) whereby the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna was confirmed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was asked to show cause vide Annexure-2 but, the show cause notice, itself, shows that no discrepancy was found at Centre No. 124 on which the petitioner was working as Anganwari Sevika.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that the supervising authority namely Sudha Sinha, CDPO made inspection of the Centre No. 124 on 03.09.2011 and found

Patna High Court CWJC No.3865 of 2014 dt.01-08-2017 different discrepancies in running the centre. She gave E-grade to the centre on the basis of which show cause was asked for but, the petitioner did not give any satisfactory reply. The order, itself, shows that the petitioner was not found present on the date of inspection. No Poshahar was prepared and the petitioner failed to submit reports regularly.

5. Now the only question arises whether the petitioner has been removed from the service in accordance with law? It appears that on 03.09.2011, the centre of the petitioner was inspected and the petitioner was not found present. Sahayika was present. It is reported that no nutritious food was prepared. The centre of the petitioner was given E-grade and, on such, a show cause was asked from the petitioner but, the petitioner could not give any satisfactory reply about the bad condition of the centre. Anganwari Sevika is to be selected to execute the scheme properly and to provide foods for children and others to prevent them from malnutrition but the petitioner utterly failed and did not run the centre properly.

6. Having considered the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.08.2017 Transmission Date NA