MEERA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Aanganwari Sevika at Centre No.47, West Chamar Toli, Udwant Nagar. An inspection was made by Procurement Officer of ICDS. He had made inspection at different Centres in an around Centre of the petitioner as Centre No.71 Koeri Tola, Udwant Nagar where Rita Devi was working as Sevika, Centre No.25, Fatehpatti, Udwantnagar where Pushpa Singh was working as Sevika and Centre No.48, Dushadh Toli, Udwantnagar where Panvart Devi was working as Sevika including the Centre of the petitioner. In all the Centres, by and large common deficiencies were found as has been reported that there was no proper scale or weighing machine for weighting and they were working on the basis of mechanical Tube scale. It has also been reported that presence of children were wrongly maintained in the attendance register and the Procurement Officer has given a recommendation to proportionate reduction of food-grains to the different Centers including the Center of the petitioner. The report was placed before the District Programme Officer, who did not agree with the proposal of the Procurement Officer issued notice to each Aanganwari Sevika of the aforesaid Centres and, accordingly, he was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by them, that led to removal from the engagement as Aanganwari Sevika. Against that apart from the petitioner and others have also approached to the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara. It has been informed that the District Magistrate, Ara has passed the order granting relief to other Sevikas, but in the case of the petitioner, the matter remained pending for disposal and, accordingly, the petitioner moved before this Court in CWJC No.23337 of 2011, which was disposed of with a direction to the Collector to pass a reasoned order. The Collector considered the case of the petitioner and vide order dated 28.12.2012 rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the Procurement Officer has pointed out the similar and identical type of deficiencies in other Centers, the reason best know to the Collector, he has allowed the cases of other Aanganwari Sevikas except the petitioner. When the identical charge is there with respect to the identical deficiencies then law is very much settled that the uniformity should be maintained in the matter of awarding punishment also otherwise it violates the Article 14 of the Constitution of India as both constitute the same class they were discharging the same and similar duty as Aanganwari Sevika. The basic purpose was to feed the children of deprived class of the society.