Patna High CourtCWJC/10537/2014dismissed

Tilamuni Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-12-06Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 10537 of 2014 =========================================================== Tilamuni Singh Wife of Umesh Singh resident of Village Bargahi, P.S- Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur.

5. The Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Commissionery, Patna.

6. The District Program Officer, Ara, Bhojpur.

7. The Child Development Project Officer, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur.

8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bargahi, Udwant Nagar Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Kamlesh Prasad Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr Krishna Kant Tiwari, AC to SC 27 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Angan Bari Centre No 132, where the petitioner was Sevika, was inspected on 17.04.2012 by the District Level Inspection Team. The petitioner has been found absent from the Centre. She was issued a show cause by the competent authority being the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur. She has submitted her reply to the show cause and was also personally heard. The petitioner's show cause is Annexure 6. Absence of the petitioner from the Centre on the

Patna High Court CWJC No.10537 of 2014 dt.06-12-2017 2/2 date of inspection is admitted but the petitioner has tried to explain the same by saying that she had gone for treatment of some child. Since the issue of absence has been admitted and since the entire procedure prescribed under the Rules for removal of the Sevika has been observed up to the passing of the appellant order dated 28.04.2014, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the matter exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the Court of judicial review is limited to the decision making process which has been observed. Further, counsel for the petitioner has also informed this Court that in the meantime, another person has already been appointed as Angan Bari Sevika of the Centre in question.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.12.2017 Transmission Date NA