Pramila Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.988 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12548 of 2024 ====================================================== Pramila Kumari, Wife of Kishore Kumar Vishwakarma, Resident of VillageDaulatpur Simari, P.S-Bihta, District-Patna. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.
The District Magistrate, Patna.
3.
The District Programme Officer, Patna.
4.
The Child Development Project Officer, Bihta, Patna. 5.
Sarita Pandit Wife of Rajendra Paswan Resident of Village-Daulatpur Simari, P.S-Bihta, District-Patna, At Presently posted as Anganwari Sevika at Centre-Daulatpur Simari Code No. 158, Child Development Project, Bihta.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) Date : 31-03-2026 Re.: I.A. No. 01 of 2026 The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 01 day in preferring the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. I.A. No. 01/2026 stands allowed.
2/13 Re.: L.P.A.No. 988 of 2024
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The present intra court appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of letter patent of Patna High Court Rules, against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 12548 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
6. CWJC No. 12548 of 2024 was filed by the appellant, seeking the following reliefs:
"For issuance of the appropriate writ/writs, order/order or direction/directions for quashing the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by Learned Collector-Cum-District Magistrate. Patna in Aganbari Appeal No.02/2022-2023, whereby and whereunder the Appeal No.02/2022-2023 was dismissed, and also for quashing the Memo No1574, dated 08.12.2011 issued by the District Programme Officer, Patna by which the Selection of the petitioner on the Post of the Aganbari Sevika was cancelled and further be direct to respondent authority to appoint/Select the petitioner on the Post of Aganbari Sevika after cancel the Selection of the respondents No.5."
7. The brief facts of the case are that the writpetitioner/appellant herein was appointed as an Anganbari Sevika on 15.10.2003. During the course of her service, Anganbari Centre was inspected by the Child Development Programme Officer (CDPO) on 27.11.2011 and vide letter no.
3/13 245 dated 29.11.2011, an enquiry report was submitted to the District Programme Officer (DPO), Patna. Pursuant thereto, after considering all the facts and materials on record, the DPO, Patna, by order dated 08.12.2011, cancelled the selection of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed Anganbari Appeal Case No. 02 of 2022-23, which was heard and rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 12.10.2022. Against the said orders, appellant filed CWJC No. 12548 of 2024, which was dismissed by order dated 22.08.2024.
8. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and upon consideration of the materials available on record, passed the following order,:
"5. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna this Court is of the firm view that the order is well reasoned and speaking and there is no need of any interference in this matter.
6. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed."
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not present at the Anganwadi Centre at the time when biscuits were distributed by the Sahayika, which allegedly led to illness among the children. Learned Counsel pointed out that from the date of appointment till the date of dismissal, the service record of the appellant remained satisfactory and free
4/13 from any adverse remarks. It is further submitted that order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from legal infirmity and non-application of mind, and therefore, warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the District Magistrate, Patna, in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 02/2022-23, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, passed a reasoned order dated 12.10.2022, whereby the appellant was found guilty and consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge, upon due consideration of the materials on record, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court the averments made in the counter affidavit, the relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. That it is needful to state that the C.D.Ρ.Ο., Bihta vide letter no.-245, dated-29.11.2011 has submitted report that on 27.11.2011, the Anganbari Centre-Daulatpur Simari (Code No.-158) has been inspected. The children, namely-Suraj, Raghu, Rakesh, Amn, Anuslika and Puja had stated that on 26.11.2011 only one biscuit was given to them instead of 'Khichari'. Thereafter all the children
5/13 became ill and started vomiting. The local residents/villagers had stated against the arbitrary behavior of the Anganbari Sevika (Petitioner). She prepares Poshahar rarely and offers only biscuit/toffee. Further, only 15-20 children are found instead of 40. She use to operate the centre from her house.
9. That in view of the inspection report of the C.D.P.O., Bihta, the District Programme Officer, Patna has found many irregularities and thus sought show cause from the petitioner, which was not found to be satisfactory. The charges against the petitioner have been found to be a serious nature. Thus Case No.-44/2010-11 has been initiated on basis of the report dated-29.11.2011 submitted by the C.D.P.O., Bihta.
10. That the District Programme Officer, Patna had issued notice to the Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika of the said Centre and heard the said case at length. The Anganbari Sahayika had submitted that on-26.11.2011, the Anganbari Sevika did not come at the Centre till 12:00 PM. Due to which 'Khichari' could not be prepared. She came later and gave a packet of biscuit for distributing it to the children and left the Centre saying that she is going to Bihta. Thus poshahar was not given to the Sahayika. There has been lot of oveiwriting found in the attendance register. The District Programme Officer, Patna after considering all the facts on record including the report submitted by the C.D.P.O., Bihta. been passed Thus order has vide memo по.-1574, dated-08.12.2011, whereby the selection of petitioner has been cancelled and the C.D.P.O., Bihta has been directed to ensure that there is no compromise on the standard/quality of meal given to the children.
11. That the petitioner had filed Appeal No.- 05/2012 before the District Magistrate, Patna. The District Magistrate, Patna had heard the matter and after considering all the facts on record has passed order vide memo no.-1465, dated10.06.2013,-whereby the order passed by the
6/13 District Programme Officer, Patna has been affirmed.
12. That the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No.-4256 of 2015 against the said order passed by the District Magistrate, Patna. The Hon'ble Court after hearing the matter has passed order dated19.04.2019 directing the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties.
13. That accordingly, the District Magistrate, Patna has heard the matter in Anganbari Appeal Case No.-02/2022-23 and after giving opportunities to the concerned parties has passed order dated12.10.2022, whereby the Anganbari Sevika (Petitioner) has been found to be guilty. Thus the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected."
12. The order passed by the District Programme Officer (DPO), Patna, vide Memo No. 1574 dated 08.12.2011, whereby the appellant has been removed from service, is reproduced hereinbelow:
"सवविकक एविव सहकवयिकक कस बयिकन स ननम्नकववकत अननयिनमिततकए स्पष्ट हहोतती ह:- १. ददिनकवक- 26.11.11 कहो ननरकर्धाररित अविनर कस पपविर्धा यिकनन 11.00 AM मिमें ऑगनबकडती कमेंद्र स सवविक चलल गई। जबवक उपररिरकत पवजती मिमें आगमिन कक समियि 9.00 AM तथक प्रस्थकन कक समियि 1.00 PM दिजर्धा ह।
2. बच्चचों कस नलए नसरर्धा एक पहकसट नबस्कट उपलब्र करिकनक।
3. खखिचडती बनकनस हसतक कहोई भती सकमिगती सहकवयिकक कहो नहलव दिसनक।
4. कमेंद्र परि बच्चचों ककी विकस्तवविक उपखस्थनत कमि हहोनस कस विकबजपदि अनरक बच्चचों ककी ननयिनमित उपखस्थनत
7/13 बनकनक।
5. दिहो-ततीन ददिन पहलस हल कमेंद्र कहो नयिस स्थकन परि खशिफ्ट वकयिक गयिक थक. पवरितक पपविर्धा स कमेंद्र वकरिकयिक कक भकगतकन लसतस रिहनक।
6. उपखस्थनत पवजती मिमें सवविकक दकरिक ओविरिरिकइवटवग तथक कवटवग करि बच्चचों ककी सवख्यिक अनरक दिशिकर्धानक।
7. बकल वविककस पररियिहोजनक पदिकनरककरिल, नबहटक दकरिक ददिनकवक- 15.09.11 कहो ननरिलक्षण कस क्रमि मिमें 1520 बच्चचों कक पकनक।
8. ऑगनबकडती कमेंद्र परि पहोषकहकरि कक मितीनप नहलव टकएगक जकनक।
9. सहकवयिकक गकमि- दिदौघडक पवचकयित मिकशितीपकरि ककी ह. जहो पहोषक क्षसत्र स बकहरि दिपसरिस पवचकयित मिमें ह। 10.
पहोषकहकरि ननयिनमित रूप स नहल बननक। उपरिहोक्त तथ्यिचों कस आलहोक मिमें सवविकक एविव सहकवयिकक दकरिक ददियिक गयिक स्पष्टतीकरिण स्वितीककरि करिनस यिहोग्यि नहलव ह। अततः शतीमिनत प्रनमिलक कमिकरिल, सवविकक एविव शतीमितती सनबतक दिसविती सहकवयिकक, कमेंद्र - दिदौलतपकरि नसमिरिल, कहोड सव०- 158 बकल वविककस पररियिहोजनक, नबहटक कक चयिन रिद वकयिक जकतक ह औरि बकल वविककस पररियिहोजनक पदिकनरककरिल नबहटक कहो आदिसशि ददियिक जकतक ह वक विस अपनस स्तरि स सभती आवगनविकडती सवविककओव एववि सहकवयिककओव कहो वहदिकयित दिमें वक पहोषकहकरि ववितरिण एववि खिकद्य सकमिगती आपपनतर्धा मिमें गकणवितक स कहोई समिझदौतक नहल करिस।"
13. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna, in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 02/2022-23, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties and upon consideration of the facts and materials on record, has affirmed the order passed
8/13 by the DPO by a reasoned order dated 12.10.2022, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"अनभलसखिबद्ध ककगजकतचों कक पररिशितीलन एविव उभयि पक्ष कहो सकननस कस उपरिकवत न्यिकयिकलयि इस ननष्कषर्धा परि पहकएचतक ह वक आवगनबकडती कसन्द्र सव 0158 दिदौलतपकरि नसमिरिल मिमें घटनक कस नतनथ - 26.11.2011 कहो प्रनमिलक दिसविती, सवविकक एविव सववितक दिसविती, सहकवयिकक कसन्द्र परि पदिस्थकवपत थतीव। उस कसन्द्र मिमें पढ़नस विकलस बच्चचों
(1) सपरिज, वपतक-रिकजसशि वविश्वकमिकर्धा (2) रिघक एविव रिककसशि, वपतक-शिवकरि वविश्वकमिकर्धा
(3) अरूण, वपतक-अननशि (4) अनकष्कक, वपतक-सकरिसशि वविश्वकमिकर्धा (5) पपजक, वपतक-मिकनक सकवि इत्यिकददि कहो एकएक वविस्कट खिकनस कहो नमिलक थक। नबस्कट खिकनस कस बकदि हल सकरिस बच्चस बतीमिकरि पड गयिस। उनलहोगचों कहो पसट मिमें दिदिर्धा तथक उल्टल हकयिती। उन्हमें स्थकनतीयि डडॉक्टरि स ईलकज करिकयिक गयिक। इसककी पकखष्ट घटनक कस पशकत ददिनकवक-27.11.2011 कहो बकल वविककस पररियिहोजनक पदिकनरककरिल, नबहटक दकरिक वकयिक गयिक ह। उनकस दकरिक बच्चचों स पपछनस परि जकनककरिल नमिलल वक खिकनक नहलव बनक थक। मिकत्र एक-एक नबस्कट खिकनस कस नलए कसन्द्र परि नमिलक थक, खजस खिकतस हल तनबयित खिरिकब हहोनस लगती। प्रभकरिल खचवकत्सक पदिकनरककरिल, प्रकथनमिककी स्विकस्थ्यि कसन्द्र, नबहटक कस दकरिक असहननक शिल्यि खचवकत्सक सह मिकख्यि खचवकत्सक पदिकनरककरिल, पटनक कहो पत्र सव0-404, नबहटक, ददिनकवक-28.11.
9/13 बच्चचों कक उपचकरि वकयिक गयिक। इस घटनक कस सवबवर मिमें पपछनस परि सवविकक प्रनमिलक दिसविती दकरिक अपनस बचकवि मिमें पक्ष रिखिक गयिक वक विस प्रखिण्ड मिमें आहपत नमिवटवग मिमें कसन्द्र सहकवयिकक परि छहोडकरि चलल गई। बहठक मिमें जकनस स पपविर्धा उन्हमें पपरिक पहोषकहकरि बनकनस हसतक कच्चती सकमिगती सहकवयिकक कहो उपलब्र करिकनक थक एविव पहोषकहकरि बनविकनक सकननखशत करिनक चकवहए थक। वकन्तक अपतीलकथर्थी कस दकरिक सहकवयिकक कहो पहोषकहकरि बनकनस हसतक सकमिगती जहस चकविल, दिकल इत्यिकददि न दिसकरि नबस्कट कक एक पहकसट बच्चचों मिमें ववितरिण कस नलए ददियिक गयिक। चपएवक कसन्द्र परि उपलब्र सभती सकमिगती कस प्रभकरिल सवविकक हल हहोतती ह। अततः ससमियि पहोषकहकरि बनविकनस ककी खजम्मिसविकरिल इनककी हहोतती ह, परि इनकस दकरिक सहल स अपनती खजम्मिसविकरिल कक पकलन नहलव वकयिक गयिक। अनभलसखि मिमें सवलग्न बकल नबककस पररियिहोजनक पदिकनरककरिल, नबहटक कस ननरिलक्षण प्रनतविसदिन मिमें उल्लसखखित ह वक गकएवि विकलचों नस बतकयिक वक सवविकक बहकत मिनमिकनती करितती ह औरि कभती कभती पहोषकहकरि बनकतती ह। प्रकयितः सवविकक कस दकरिक खिकनस कस स्थकन परि नबस्कट एविव टडॉरकी कक ववितरिण वकयिक जकतक ह। सवविकक पपविर्धा मिमें अपनस घरि परि हल कसन्द्र कक पररिचकलन करितती थती खजसमिमें 15 स 20 बच्चचों कहो हल रिखितती थती।बकरि-बकरि कहनस परि 02 स 03 ददिन पहलस कसन्द्र कहो नयिस वकरिकयिस कस कमिरिस मिमें स्थकनकन्तरिण वकयिक गयिक थक, जबवक पहलस स वकरिकयिक उनकस दकरिक नलयिक जक रिहक थक। आएगनबकडती कसन्द्र परि तत्ककल हल कच्चती नमिटती कक चपल्हक बनक हकआ थक, खजसकहो दिसखिनस स प्रततीत हहोतक थक वक ननरिलक्षण ककी नतनथ 27.
11.
10/13 पहलस भती कई नतनथयिचों कहो जकएच ककी गयिती थती, खजसमिमें कसन्द्र परि अननयिनमिततक पकयिती गयिती थतीव। अपतीलकथर्थी प्रमितीलक कमिकरिल चयिनमिकक्त सवविकक कस वविरूद्ध आरिहोप गवभतीरि प्रककनत कस ह। सभती आरिहोप सवविकक कहो हल दिहोषती ठहरिकतस ह। सहकवयिकक सवविकक कस आदिसशि कक अनकपकलन करितती ह। सवविकक कस आदिसशि परि हल पहोषकहकरि नहलव बनकयिक गयिक औरि उनकस ननदिर्देशि परि हल बच्चचों कस बतीच खिरिकब नबस्कट कक ववितरिण वकयिक गयिक, खजसस बच्चचों ककी तनबयित खिरिकब हकयिती। खजसस स्पष्ट हहोतक ह वक सहकवयिकक ननदिर्दोष ह। सकरिल जविकबदिसहल सवविकक ककी ह। अपतीलकथर्थी प्रनमिलक कमिकरिल, सवविकक कक अपनस कर्धाव्यि कस प्रनत लकपरिविकहल प्रमिकखणत हहोतक ह। इस ककरिण अपतीलकथर्थी प्रमितीलक कमिकरिल कहो सवविकक कस पदि स चयिनमिकक्त वकयिक गयिक तथक सहकवयिकक कहो ननदिर्दोष पकयिस जकनस कस ककरिण पकनतः बहकल करि नलयिक गयिक। उपयिकर्धाक्त विखणर्धात तथ्यिचों एविव अनभलसखि मिमें उपलब्र ककगजकतचों कस अविलहोकन तथक उभयि पक्ष कहो सकननस कस पशकत यिह स्पष्ट ह वक प्रनमिलक कमिकरिल, तत्ककललन सवविकक कतर्धाव्यि मिमें लकपरिविकहल ककी दिहोषती ह औरि उनकक तकर्धा यिथहोखचत नहलव ह। अततः अपतीलकथर्थी कस अपतील कहो खिकररिज करितस हकए विकदि कहो समिकप्त वकयिक जकतक ह।"
14. Upon perusal of the material on record and after hearing the parties, it is evident that the appellant, while functioning as Sevika, failed to ensure preparation of the prescribed supplementary nutrition for the children and instead distributed biscuits, upon consumption of which several children fell ill, suffering from stomach pain, vomiting, and allied symptoms. It was incumbent upon the appellant to ensure the
11/13 proper and effective functioning of the Anganbari Centre in accordance with the prescribed norms. The responsibility of maintaining adequate standards of nutrition and ensuring the safety and well-being of the children rested upon her. In the present case, the materials on record clearly demonstrate that the appellant failed to discharge these essential duties. Such conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court, reflects gross negligence and serious dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant, thereby justifying the action taken by the respondent authorities in cancelling her selection.
15. Further, the appellant has been unable to substantiate the grounds of the present appeal to dislodge the findings of the learned Single Judge. The Scope of a Letters Patent Appeal is limited, and normally in absence of cogent reasons, Division Bench would not differ from a finding of fact recorded by learned Single Judge as the Letters Patent Bench primarily acts as a court of correction. The relevant paragraph of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 52, is reproduced as under:
"2.... A letters patent appeal, as permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in
12/13 exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. So understood, the appellate power under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in procedural language. ..."
16. Similarly, it is well settled that interference with findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge is warranted only in cases of perversity or patent illegality. In this regard, it is relevant to take note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, wherein it has been held that merely because another view is possible, the order of the Single Judge ought not to be interfered with. The Court observed as follows:
"5. ... Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge..."
17. In view of the facts and materials available on record, the discussions made hereinabove, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single
13/13 Judge warranting interference.
18. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands dismissed.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J) (Shailendra Singh, J) Sujit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 03.04.2026 Transmission Date