SUSHMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Bangi on 6th August, 2007. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 6 against the appointment of petitioner to the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Rajgrarh. He entrusted the inquiry to the Naib Tehsildar. The Tehsildar on the basis of the report furnished by the Naib Tehsildar cancelled the income certificate dated 14th June, 2007 issued in favour of the petitioner on 27th December, 2007. The petitioner was also issued show cause notice by the CDPO, Rajgarh on 14th September, 2007. F.I.R. No. 68 of 2007 was also registered against the petitioner and one Patwari under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Trial is pending before the competent Criminal Court. The petitioner has earlier filed CWP No. 102 of 2008 in this Court. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner on 17th May, 2010. The Deputy Commissioner has now passed fresh order on 27th December, 2010. It has come on record that the petitioners family owns 102 bighas of land.

(2.) We have gone through order dated 27th December, 2007 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Rajgarh and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 27th December, 2010 minutely. It is evident from the order dated 27th December, 2007 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Rajgarh that he has recorded the statements of the then Naib Tehsildar, Rajgarh and one Shri Narinder Singh, V.R.O., Kotla Bangi wherein they have corroborated that the income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 12,000/-. The income of the petitioner has been found to be more than Rs.40,000/- as per the report of Naib Tehsildar, Rajgarh submitted to Executive Magistrate, Rajgarh. The petitioner has obtained false income certificate to get employment as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Bangi. F.I.R. No. 68 of 2007 dated 30th October, 2007 was registered against the petitioner and one Patwari under Sections 420, 471 and 468 of Indian Penal Code and the trial is pending before the Criminal Court. It is in these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner has come to the right conclusion that once the income certificate of the petitioner stood cancelled, she cannot be permitted to continue as Anganwari Worker.

(3.) Now, as far as the statement of one Gita Devi Sharma is concerned, though she has stated that she was no longer interested in the post, but the fact of the matter is that since the income certificate of the petitioner stood cancelled, the petitioner could not continue as Anganwari Worker. Moreover, the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Rajgarh is appealable before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). It was always open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority in accordance with law. The petitioner cannot be permitted to continue against the post of Anganwari Worker since her income certificate has been cancelled by the competent authority and also due to the fact that criminal case is also pending against her.