NANDINI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From Annexure-5 it appears that the Block Development Officer has received letter no.1306 dated 21.07.2012 from the Deputy Development Commissioner, Banka in response to which he was submitting his report through this letter dated 30.07.2013. Annexure-3 is the order of the Collector dated 07.06.2013 by which appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) From the original order of the District Programme Officer as well as the order of the Collector it is apparent that on inspection of Anganwari Centre of petitioner on the next day of Holi festival, petitioner was not found present .However, on receiving information of inspection, she rushed to the Anganwari Centre. It was also found that children were not present. Hence, this was treated as lapse on the part of the petitioner and after due notice, she has been disengaged The defence of petitioner was that, being the next day of Holi festival, children were engaged in cleaning clothes and did not come at the Centre and she had also upset stomach due to which she had gone home. The defence of petitioner has not been accepted by the District Programme Officer and also by the Collector.

(3.) However, it appears that after petitioner filed her appeal, a report was called for from the Block Development Officer through the said letter no.1306 dated 21.07.2012 which finds reference in Annexure-5. But Annexure-5 containing his report was submitted by the Block Development Officer after the Collector passed the impugned order. Obviously, the same could not be considered.