RENU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 21/3/2018 passed in Case No. 18214/2016 by the District Magistrate, Nawada, whereby and whereunder the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the original order dtd. 5/8/2016 passed by the District Programme Officer, Social Welfare Department, Nawada in Case No. 48 (Miscellaneous) Kendra Sanchalan/2016, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that after being selected on the post of Anganwari Sevika at Centre No. 20, Chandinama East Kashichak, Nawada, the petitioner was working honestly and sincerely. The petitioner is stated to be suffering from kidney problem since 2004 and was/is undergoing treatment by the doctors at Patna. On 21/7/2016, since the petitioner was not feeling well, she had filed an application for grant of leave from 24/7/2016 to 31/7/2016. In the morning of 23/7/2016, the condition of the petitioner became critical, hence she got herself treated by the local doctor but the medicines given by the said doctor did not result in any improvement in the condition of the petitioner, hence she was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Nawada, as is also apparent from the prescription dtd. 23/7/2016 annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner was taken to Jamshedpur by her brother for better treatment. It is a matter of record that on 23/7/2016, while the petitioner was undergoing treatment, the B.D.O., Kashichak, Nawada had inspected the centre in question where the petitioner was posted and had found that the meal was being cooked by the Sahayika. Subsequently, upon receiving the report of the B.D.O., Kashichak, Nawada, the respondent no. 3 had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating therein that during the inspection of the centre on 23/7/2016, the petitioner was found absent and the quality of food was also found to be bad as also only five students were found present, hence the petitioner was directed to submit her show cause reply. The petitioner had appeared on the date of hearing fixed before the respondent no. 3 i.e. on 1/8/2016 and had produced the medical certificate in support of her case i.e. being absent for one day, however, the respondent no. 3 by the impugned order dtd. 5/8/2016 cancelled the selection of the petitioner as Angwanwari Sevika. The petitioner had then filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, Nawada, however, the same has also been rejected by the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned order dtd. 5/8/2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 would show that the respondent no. 3 has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that in case of emergency, the petitioner ought to have got herself treated at the nearest Primary Health Centre instead of going to the hospital situated at a long distance, hence her conduct appears to be doubtful, to which it is submitted that the petitioner is suffering from kidney ailments which cannot be treated at any Primary Health Centre inasmuch as there is no facility for treatment of kidney problem, as such since the condition of the petitioner had become critical, she was taken to the Sadar Hospital, Nawada by the villagers, thus the contention of the respondent no. 3 is not correct. It is also submitted that the petitioner had in fact produced the medical certificates in support of her innocence but the same have not been considered by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the punishment of cancellation of the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika for absence on only one day is too harsh and excessive, hence is fit to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Phul Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2019(1) PLJR 1; paragraph nos. 8 to 12 whereof is reproduced herein below:-