Patna High Court
Satyabhama Devi @ SatyabhamaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as there is no infirmity or perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge.
Summary
The appellant, Satyabhama Devi, challenged her removal from the post of Anganwadi Sevika, seeking a certiorari to quash the order dated 16‑03‑2024 and a mandamus for reinstatement, alleging lack of hearing, unproven charges, and humanitarian grounds. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, finding no evidence to support the appellant's pleas and noting that the Divisional Commissioner had already rejected her arguments. On appeal, the High Court examined the record and found no material to overturn the lower court's findings. The Court held that the order of the Single Judge was neither infirm nor perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the appellant advised to make representations before the competent authority if desired.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 16‑03‑2024 removing the petitioner can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement by a writ of mandamus due to denial of a personal hearing.
- Whether procedural lapses in record‑keeping justify the harsh removal of the petitioner.
- Whether humanitarian considerations (death of husband, illness) warrant relief under natural justice.
Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Writ of Certiorari
- Writ of Mandamus
- Natural Justice
- Procedural Fairness
- Employment Termination
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.853 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9974 of 2024
======================================================
Satyabhama Devi @ Satyabhama, W/o -Late Rajendra Pandit, Resident of -
Mahshaili Gidwas, Pandit Tola, P.O. - Gidwas, P.S. - Raniganj, Prakhand-
Raniganj, District- Araria (Bihar), earlier posted as Aganwari Sevika Centre
No.- 240 (Gidwas), Ward No - 10.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary General Administration
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
3. The Director ICDS Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Araria.
5. The District Program Officer (ICDS) Araria.
6. The CDPO Prakhand, Raniganj Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
6 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Intra Court appeal has been filed
against the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9974 of 2024, wherein the learned Single
Judge had dismissed the writ petition.
3. The said writ petition was filed by the
petitioner/appellant for the following reliefs:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.853 of 2024(6) dt.20-01-2026
2/4
(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of
certiorari quashing order dated 16.03.2024 in
Anganwadi appeal no 24 /2024 passed by respondent
no 2 (divisional commissioner Purnea whereby the
respondent no 2 has concurred with charges levelled
by respondent no 5 (DPO Araria) and CDPO
(Raniganj Araria) and has upheld order dated
30.11.2022 contained in memo no 1560 by the DPO
Araria without going into and not appreciating the
fact that the charges not proved against the
petitioner.
(ii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding
the respondent authorities for reinstatement of the
petitioner on the post of Aganwari Sevika of center
no- 240 Gidwas Raniganj, Araria as the petitioner
has neither been given personal opportunity of
hearing nor records maintained by the petitioner
has been demanded or perused meticulously by any
concerned senior official and as such the petitioner
has not committed any wrong or indulged in any
fraudulent activity attracting such a harshest
punishment at the fag end of her service.
(iii) For holding that even if certain records not
being maintained as per prescribed procedure /
register even then the same itself cannot be the sole
reason for the harshest nature of removal as the
petitioner because of death of her husband and being
ill undergoing treatment and as such in view of
natural justice and humanistic ground also requires
support of respondent authorities and not the kind of
draconian treatment of which the petitioner has been
made victim outrightly by way of removal for her no
fault in any manner.
(iv) For any other relief/(s) applicable in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.853 of 2024(6) dt.20-01-2026
3/4
4. It would be relevant to take note of the
consideration and observations made by the learned Single
Judge, which read as under:
“3. It transpires to this Court that petitioner has
earlier moved before this Hon’ble Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 2487 of 2023 in which vide order
dated 13.07.2023, she was directed to assail her
order before the appropriate authority under the
2019 guidelines, thereafter the matter was
decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea
which is Annexure-P10.
4. From the perusal of the document, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that on the said
date of inspection, the death of petitioner’s
husband took place. It is due to this reason, she
was found absent.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that
ground of date of death has not been supported by
any document, as in this regard, the D.P.O. and
D.M., Araria both have indicated in their
respective order-sheet. He further submits that the
said ground has also not taken before the
Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
6. Upon perusal of the order passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, it has been
found that no such plea has been taken and it has
been categorically observed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea that with regard to her
pleadings, no evidence has been produced.
7. In this view of the matter, this Court has no
option but to affirm the order.”
5. Upon perusal of records of the case it is evident that
there is no sufficient material available on record to substantiate
the grounds of the present appeal. As such, the appellant has not
been able to dislodge the findings of the learned Single Judge.
6. In view of the discussions made herein, we find no
Patna High Court L.P.A No.853 of 2024(6) dt.20-01-2026
4/4
infirmity or perversity in the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9974 of 2024.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The
appellant will be at liberty to make representation before the
competent authority, if so advised.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
( Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
U
Checking your session…