Case Background
The case concerns an Anganwadi Sevika posted at Centre No. 27, earlier notified at the Primary School, Chakdiwan, in Sheikhpura district. She was working under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) system.
On 15.12.2011, the Anganwadi Centre run by the appellant was inspected by the Additional Collector, Sheikhpura. After this inspection, various alleged irregularities were recorded in a report submitted to the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura.
Based on this report, the District authorities started action. On 19.12.2011, a letter was sent to the Sevika pointing out irregularities and directing her to run the Centre from a rented house or a government building instead of the temple where she was functioning.
On 16.01.2012, a reminder-cum-show-cause notice was issued, again seeking explanation about irregularities. She was asked to reply with reference to the earlier letter dated 19.12.2011 within three days, failing which her selection as Anganwadi Sevika would be cancelled.
The Sevika submitted her explanation on 17.01.2012. She admitted that she was running the Centre in a temple, but said that this was because of lack of space in the notified Primary School building. She assured that she would shift the Centre once she found a proper place.
On 20.01.2012, she submitted another explanation. She explained her delay and difficulties, saying that due to the untimely death of her father, the death of her father-in-law, and later the fracture of her son’s leg, she could not give the required explanation in time. She also denied the other alleged irregularities.
Despite these explanations, the District Programme Officer, Sheikhpura, passed an order dated 13.02.2012 (Memo No. 101) terminating her selection as Anganwadi Sevika for Centre No. 27 of Nagar Parishad, Sheikhpura.
Aggrieved, she filed Misc. Case No. 06 of 2012-13 before the Collector, Sheikhpura, challenging the termination. On 28.06.2012, the Collector dismissed the case and upheld the termination order.
She then filed a revision, Revision No. 46 of 2012, before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger. On 10.12.2014, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the revision and maintained the Collector’s order.
Thereafter, she approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 829 of 2015. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 02.04.2018, refused to interfere with the orders of the District Programme Officer, the Collector, and the Divisional Commissioner, and dismissed her writ petition.
Against this dismissal, the Sevika filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1722 of 2018 before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. This appeal led to the judgment dated 12.01.2023.
What the Court Examined and Decided
At the outset, the Division Bench noted a clerical error: in some pages of the LPA paper the appellant’s name was incorrectly mentioned as “Ranju Devi” instead of “Ranju Kumari.” The Court directed the appellant to rectify this by incorporating the correct name as “Ranju Kumari” the same day.
The Bench then heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. The main dispute was not about whether irregularities existed, but whether the Sevika had been given a fair and proper opportunity to defend herself before being removed from service.
The appellant’s counsel argued that after she submitted her explanation to the show-cause notice, the District Programme Officer did not conduct any formal or informal enquiry. No oral or documentary evidence was collected in her presence. She was not given a chance to lead evidence, cross-check the allegations, or participate in any hearing.
According to the appellant, the District Programme Officer passed the termination order dated 13.02.2012 suddenly, without prior information and without hearing her. This, it was argued, amounted to passing an ex parte order behind her back, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The appellant further emphasized that she had admitted only one thing: that she was running the centre in a temple instead of the notified primary school, and that too due to shortage of space in the school building. She had clearly denied the other irregularities and had also explained her personal circumstances causing delay in response.
On the other side, the State’s counsel defended the action. He submitted that the Additional Collector’s inspection on 15.12.2011 revealed several irregularities at the Anganwadi Centre.
The State pointed to specific alleged lapses: the board of the Centre was not displayed; there was no arrangement for latrine and drinking water; only five children were in uniform; stock was not shown when demanded; on most days, 60% of children were absent; the Centre was being run in a private temple instead of the fixed Primary School; and registers were not available at the Centre. These, it was submitted, violated the prescribed rules.
According to the State, the explanations submitted by the Sevika were not satisfactory and therefore the authorities were justified in canceling her selection. The learned Single Judge had relied on the admitted fact that the Centre was not run at the notified place and had refused to interfere, which, according to the State, was correct.
The Division Bench carefully examined the chronology of events. The inspection took place on 15.12.2011. On 19.12.2011, the appellant was sent a letter mentioning irregularities and directing her to shift the Centre to a rented house or government building.
On 16.01.2012, she was again asked to furnish an explanation within three days, with a clear warning that her selection would be cancelled if she failed to do so. She submitted explanations on 17.01.2012 and again on 20.01.2012, giving reasons and denying irregularities other than temporary shifting of the Centre.
Despite this, without holding any further enquiry or giving her a hearing on her explanations, the District Programme Officer passed the termination order on 13.02.2012. The Court observed that all of this happened within about two months from inspection to termination.
The Division Bench held that it was “not in dispute” that the appellant was removed from the post of Anganwadi Sevika on the basis of certain allegations, and that no opportunity of hearing was provided after she had submitted her show cause.
The Court found that the District Programme Officer (respondent no. 4) passed the termination order “all of a sudden without prior information to the appellant and without hearing,” which was an ex parte order. On this basis, the Court concluded that there was a “clear violation of principles of natural justice.”
To support this conclusion, the Court relied on recent decisions of the Supreme Court. It referred to the judgment in Deepak Ananda Patil vs The State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 30. In paragraph 17 of that decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the affected person has been told about that material and given a chance to respond.
The quoted passage from the Supreme Court stressed that if an authority wants to rely on any material, evidence, or document against a party, it must share it with that party and give an opportunity to rebut it. If evidence is used without disclosure, the decision is vitiated because it denies a real and effective opportunity of defence.
The Division Bench also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Chetan Kamble and Others, reported in 2022 (4) SCALE 284. The Supreme Court there held that even administrative or quasi-judicial orders must be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person.
The Patna High Court held that the principles laid down in these Supreme Court decisions were “aptly applicable” to the present case. Since the appellant was not heard after submitting her explanation and before her termination, the mandatory principles of natural justice had not been followed.
On this reasoning, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had erred in upholding the removal order. The materials on record were sufficient to interfere with both the Single Judge’s decision and the authority’s order of removal.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed. The Court quashed and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.04.2018 in CWJC No. 829 of 2015.
As a consequential relief, the Court directed the concerned respondents to reinstate the appellant as Anganwadi Sevika of Ward No. 12 of Nagar Panchayat, Sheikhpura within three months from the date a copy of this judgment is communicated.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for Anganwadi Sevikas and other grassroots workers in Bihar and beyond. Many such workers face sudden removal or adverse orders based on inspection reports or complaints.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that even in such cases, authorities cannot simply rely on reports and pass ex parte orders. Once a worker gives an explanation, the authority must fairly consider it and give a proper opportunity of hearing before taking a drastic step like removal.
The decision reinforces that principles of natural justice apply even to orders passed by District Programme Officers and similar authorities, which may appear administrative but have serious consequences on livelihood.
It also shows that higher courts will step in and correct errors if lower authorities and even Single Judges fail to properly apply these principles. For workers, it sends a message that they have a right to be heard before their services are terminated.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can an Anganwadi Sevika be removed from service solely on the basis of an inspection report and written explanations, without giving her a personal hearing after she has replied to the show-cause notice?
Answer: No. The Court held that removal in such circumstances, without affording an effective opportunity of hearing, violates principles of natural justice and is unsustainable. - Issue: Was the learned Single Judge justified in upholding the termination order of the Anganwadi Sevika?
Answer: No. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge erred in not noticing the violation of natural justice, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and allowed the appeal. - Issue: What relief should follow from the finding of violation of natural justice in the removal of the Anganwadi Sevika?
Answer: The Court directed reinstatement of the appellant as Anganwadi Sevika of Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat, Sheikhpura within three months of communication of the judgment.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Deepak Ananda Patil vs The State of Maharashtra & others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 30
- Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Chetan Kamble and Others, 2022 (4) SCALE 284
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1722 of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 829 of 2015
Case Title: Ranju Kumari vs The State of Bihar & Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Date of Judgment: 12.01.2023
Citation: 2023 (1) PLJR 726
Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate
- For the Respondents (State): Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA 7
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition (service-related dispute concerning removal of Anganwadi Sevika)
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxNzIyIzIwMTgjMSNO-QvOWTV1Senw=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
