Patna High Court
Pushpa Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 21 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21468 of 2013
======================================================
Pushpa Kumari Wife of Amal Kant Das Resident of Madangachi, P.S.
Mokama, District Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. District Magistrate Cum Collector, Patna District, Patna.
3. District Programme Officer, Child Development Project, Bihar, Patna.
4. Child Development Project Officer, Mokama Circle, Mokama, Patna District
Mokama.
5. Smt. Kiran Kumari, W/o Mr. Singheswar Kumar Anganvadi Sevika,
Anganvadi Centre No.- 204, Modangachi, P.S.- Mokama, Distt.- Patna, Pin
Code No.- 803302.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prahlad Kr. Bhagat
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
i) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction be
issued setting aside the original order dated
25.09.12
contained in letter no. 258 dated
10.10.2012 (Annexure-7) passed by District
Programme Officer and the appellate order
dated 17.05.2013 passed by the collector
Patna District, in Appeal Case No. 186 of
2012 (Annexure-12) whereby the appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
2/19
authority has dismissed the appeal filed by
the petitioner against the order terminating
the service of the petitioner as Anganvadi
Sevika as arbitrary and without due
application of mind and in violation of basic
principles of Natural justice with
consequential benefits including
reinstatement of the petitioner in service
with back wages.
ii) That the petitioner may be granted any
other/additional relief or reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts of
the case.
iii) that the respondents be directed to pay to
the petitioner salary for the period
11.10.2012 till 01.12.2012, the period
between the dated of issue of the impugned
order dated 25.9.2012 issued by the District
Programme Officer, Patna directing
termination of petitioners service and the
service of the same on the petitioner on
01.12.2012.
iv) Respondents be directed to refund to the
petitioner the arrears of rent for the premises
( one room & veranda) of Shri. Girish
Paswan of village Mohangachi which was
on rent @ Rs. 200/- per month for the use of
the Anganvadi.
3.The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
3/19
petition are that the petitioner was selected as Anganvadi Sevika
by the Aam Sabha held on 24.02.2007, for the said purpose for,
under the Integrated Child Development Programme at
Anganvadi Centre No. 204 in village Mohangachhi of Mokama
Block. In the same village, there is another Anganvadi Centre
having code no. 205, where another Anganvadi Sevika is said to
have been working. The petitioner was working to the
satisfaction of the authorities concerned, however, the Child
Development Programme Officer (hereinafter referred to as
CDPO), Mokama, conducted a surprise inspection on
12.07.2012 and found certain irregularities at Anganvadi Centre
No. 204, where the petitioner was working. Pursuant thereto,
vide memo No. 1804 dated 11.08.2012 issued under the
signature of the District Programme Officer (hereinafter referred
to as DPO), Patna, a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner with regard to the irregularities found during the
course of inspection on 12.07.2012. The petitioner was directed
to appear before the District Programme Officer, Patna, along
with all the relevant documents on 27.08.2012. The petitioner
went to the office of the District Programme Officer, Patna, on
the date fixed i.e. 27.08.2012, however, she was informed by the
CDPO, that the District Programme Officer, Patna has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
4/19
transferred and the petitioner would be informed of the next date
of hearing, after the new incumbent will join on the said post.
Not satisfied with the reply given by the CDPO, the petitioner
sent her husband to the office of the DPO, Patna, along with her
reply, wherein it was informed that the DPO has already been
transferred and no date was fixed for Anganvadi Centre No.
204. However, it was informed that memo No. 1804 dated
11.08.2012 is with respect to Anganvadi Centre No. 205 and the
date for the said Centre is fixed for 27.08.2012. It is further case
of the petitioner that since the petitioner did not receive any
further notice for her appearance, she went to the office of the
DPO, Patna and submitted her reply in the office of the DPO
along with all the relevant documents in support of her claim.
All of a sudden, vide memo no. 258 dated 10.10.2012, issued
under the signature of the DPO, Patna, the impugned order
dated 25.09.2012 was communicated to the petitioner, by which
the petitioner was removed/relieved from Anganvadi Centre No.
204 and it was mentioned in the said order that the CDPO
informed the DPO, Patna that despite issuance of notice, the
petitioner refused to accept the said notice.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that while passing the impugned order dated 25.09.2012, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
5/19
DPO, Patna mentioned about receiving complaint from two of
the beneficiaries in payment of Poshak Rashi, however, the
mother of the two beneficiaries filed an affidavit, denying that
they had ever made any complaint before any authority. The
petitioner filed statutory appeal before the Collector, Patna and
the same was numbered as Anganvadi Appeal No. 186 of 2012,
however, the Collector, Patna without even considering the
grounds raised by the petitioner in her memo of appeal
proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide
his order dated 17.05.2013.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner, as per the Anganvadi Scheme, was to arrange
for suitable place/ premises for the Anganvadi Centre for which
a provision for rent of Rs. 200/- per month was allotted in the
programme. It was for the Anganvadi Sevika to hire suitable
premises for the Centre and to pay the agreed rent to the
landlord for the premises. The expenses incurred by the
Anganvadi Sevika by way of rent for premises hired by her, to
the extent of Rs. 200/- per month, was to be reimbursed by way
of bank transfer in the specified account of the Sevika, by the
District programme officer/officer concerned from time to time.
Further, the said amounts were not reimbursed to the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
6/19
and even salaries were not paid to the petitioner in her bank
account.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the impugned order dated 25.09.2012, issued under the
signature of the District Programme Officer (Patna) has been
issued in complete violation of the principles of natural justice
since, vide notice dated 11.08.2012, the petitioner was directed
to appear before the DPO, Patna on 27.08.2012, however on the
said date, the DPO, Patna was transferred and no proceeding
was held on that date. Subsequently, no notice was ever issued
to the petitioner, by fixing another date and this fact has not
been denied by the respondent authorities in their counter
affidavit. The DPO, Patna has stated/recorded in his order dated
25.09.2012 that any other date was fixed for appearance of the
petitioner or not. He only relied on the statement made by the
CDPO, Mokama, that the petitioner refused to receive the
notices issued to her. This goes to prove that the order impugned
has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice
and deserves to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
and relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported
in 2023 (2) BLJ 144 (Ranju Kumari vs. State of Bihar &
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
7/19
Ors.), wherein in paragraph nos. 09 to 11, it has been held as
follows:-
“9. It is not in dispute that the appellant had
been removed from the post of Anganwari
Sevika based on certain allegations and no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to her
after the appellant had submitted her show
cause. The respondert no.4, all of a sudden
without prior information to the appellant
and without hearing, passed an ex-parte
order behind her back on 13.02.2012. In
other words, there is a clear of principles of
natural justice. The aforesaid material is
suffice to interfere with the order of learned
Single Judge and order of the authority for
removal of the appellant from service.
10. Moreover, recently the Apex Court in the
case of Deepak Ananda Patil vs The State
Of Maharashtra & others reported in 2023
Live Law (SC) 30 in para 17 has held as
under:-
“17. It is a well-established
principle of administrative law that an
adjudicatory body cannot base its decision
on any material unless the person against
whom it is sought to be utilized has been
apprised of it and given an opportunity to
respond to it. Surveying the precedents
extensively, MP Jain & SN Jain’s treatise on
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
8/19Principles of Administrative Law notes that:
“If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on
any material, evidence or document for its
decision against a party, then the same must
be brought to his notice and he be given an
opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon.
It is regarded as a fundamental principle of
natural justice that no material ought to be
relied on against a party without giving him
an opportunity to respond to the same. The
right of being heard may be of little value if
the individual is kept in the dark as to the
evidence against him and is not given an
opportunity to deal with it. The right to know
the material on which the authority is going
to base its decision is an element of the right
to defend oneself. If without disclosing any
evidence to the party, the authority takes it
into its consideration, and decides the matter
against the party, then the decision is
vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and
effective opportunity to the party to meet the
case against him. The principle can be seen
operating in several judicial
pronouncements where non-disclosure of
materials to the affected party has been held
fatal to the validity of the hearing
proceedings”.
11. The Apex Court in the case of Esteem
Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chetan Kamble and
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
9/19
Others, reported in 2022 (4) SCALE 284,
held that even the administrative orders
which are quasi-judicial must be passed
after giving the opportunity to the concerned
person. The principle laid down in this case
is aptly applicable to the case in hand. In
paragraph no. 28, the Apex Court held as
under:-
“…This Court has clearly advocated the
importance of natural justice and an
opportunity of hearing to be afforded to
the affected party in any administrative or
quasi judicial proceedings umpteen
number of times…”
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon another Division Bench Judgment of
this Court reported in 2023 (2) BLJ 607( Meera Devi Vs. State
of Bihar & Ors), wherein in paragraph no. 13, it has been held
as follows:-
“13. The Apex Court in the case of Kranti
Associates Private Limited and Another vs.
Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported
in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in Para-47 has held as
under:-
47. Summarising the above
discussion, this Court holds:
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
10/19
(a) In India the judicial trend has always
been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record
reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is
meant to serve the wider principle of justice
that justice must not only be done it must
also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a
valid restraint on any possible arbitrary
exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or
even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a decision-
making process as observing principles of
natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial
review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
11/19
decision-making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions
these days can be as different as the judges
and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which
is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered.
This is Important for sustaining the litigants’
faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for
both judicial accountability and
transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is
not candid enough about his/her decision-
making process then it is impossible to know
whether the person deciding is faithful to the
doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be
cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of
reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to
be equated with a valid decision-making
process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is
the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of
judicial powers. Transparency in decision-
making not only less prone to errors but also
makes makes the judges and decision-
makers them subject to broader scrutiny.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
12/19
(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review
731-37].)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness
in decision-making, the said requirement is
now virtually a component of human rights
and was considered part of Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija vs. Spain
[(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para
29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford [2001
EWCA Civ
405 (CA)], wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights which requires,
“adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial
decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up
precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of the essence and
is virtually a part of “due process”
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India reported in 2025 (7) SCC 545 ( Krishnadatt Awasthy
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others), wherein in
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
13/19paragraph no. 56, it has been held as follows:-
“56. In the absence of notice, the breach
strikes at the fundamental core of
procedural fairness, rendering the decision
invalid unless exceptional circumstances
justify such deviation. The vitiation of
selection was not only a breach of the
principles of natural justice but also
contrary to the express statutory provision
that required for an opportunity to show
cause and an opportunity to provide self-
defence. The prejudice theory must be
understood as an exception to the general
rule and cannot therefore be the norm. In
view of the foregoing, a gross violation of
the principle of audi alteram partem is
noticed in the present case.”
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State submits that all the inspections were
carried out by the CDPO, in accordance with law and the report
was submitted as per the guidelines given in the departmental
letter No. 956 dated 14.03.2012 of the ICDS, department of
Social Welfare, Government of India. The CDPO, Mokama,
inspected the Centre and recorded her findings in the inspection
register, about the anomalies found at the Centre. Further, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
14/19
allegation of the petitioner that the notice was for Centre No.
205 and not for 204, is baseless since in the notice itself after
correction, the authority concerned, put his initial at the place
where overwriting has been made. The petitioner, for the
reasons best known to her, choose not to file her show cause
reply before the DPO on 27.08.2012 and it is incorrect to say
that on 27.08.2012 no case was fixed in the office of the DPO,
Patna. The petitioner was given due opportunity by the
authorities concerned, but she choose not to appear either in
person or through any representative.
11. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner was duly
examined and considered by the Collector, Patna and after
hearing the parties at length, the Collector proceeded to reject
the appeal filed by the petitioner. It has further been submitted
that one Kiran Kumari has been appointed as Anganvadi Sevika
of the Anganvadi Centre no. 204 in view of fresh advertisement,
after proceeding of the Aam Sabha, which was conducted on
05.01.2016 and selection letter has already been issued to her
vide memo no. 28 dated 31.10.2016.
12. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that during course of inspection by the CDPO, Mokama
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
15/19
the stock register and other registers were not shown by the
Anganvadi Sevika and anomalies were found in distribution of
dress to the children. They were not given proper breakfast and
the villagers also lodged complaint that the number of children
were found to be less. The poster, menu chart and list of
beneficiaries were also not displayed on the board and there has
been irregularity in the distribution of Poshak amount and take
Home Ration. The petitioner did not bothered to file any reply
to the show cause notice or did not appear before the District
Programme Officer, Patna on the date fixed i.e. 27.08.2012. It
has further been argued that there is no question of violation of
any provisions of law, including the principles of natural justice
since due notices were issued to the petitioner by the authorities
concerned, to appear before DPO, Patna, but for the reasons
best-known to the petitioner, she did not appear or filed any
reply to the show cause. Even the Collector rejected the appeal
preferred by the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner/ learned
lawyer appearing on her behalf.
13. It appears from the record that vide order dated
09.01.2024 passed in the present proceeding, while allowing
I.A. No. 03 of 2023 a learned Co-ordinate Bench of the Court
was pleased to direct for issuance of notice upon the newly
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
16/19
added respondent no. 05 i.e. Kiran Kumari, who was selected in
place of the petitioner in 2016 and vide order dated 13.03.2024
the notices upon respondent no. 05 was treated to be validly
served and it was recorded that despite notice none appears on
behalf of the respondent no. 5. Subsequently, vide office report
dated 22.04.2024 it transpires that a counter affidavit was filed
on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and the same has been kept on
record. When the matter was called out on 30.03.2026, none
appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 05, however, the
matter was heard in part and an opportunity was given to the
respondent no. 05 by informing her lawyer to appear on the next
date, but even then none appeared on the behalf the respondent
no. 05 on 31.03.2026 and finally the matter was heard and the
judgment was reserved.
14. From the counter affidavit filed on the
respondent no. 05, it appears that after termination of the
petitioner, the respondent no. 05 has been appointed as the
Anganvadi Sevika of the said Anganvadi Centre, in view of
fresh advertisement and after proceeding of the Aam Sabha
conducted on 05.01.2016. Selection Letter was issued to the
respondent no. 5 vide memo no. 28 dated 13.01.2016. She gave
her joining on 31.08.2016 before the CDPO, Mokama, after
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
17/19
obtaining training certificate from the Anganvadi Centre from
30.07.2016 to 30.08.2016. It has further been averred that the
respondent no. 05 is not at fault for termination of the petitioner
or has got no role in her selection.
15. Having considered the rival submissions and
after going through the records, it appears that an inspection was
conducted by the CDPO, Mokama and report was submitted on
12.07.2012. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued to the
petitioner on 11.08.2012, by fixing 27.08.2012 as the date for
her appearance, for filing reply to the said show cause notice. It
is the case of the petitioner that she appeared on the said date
but, on account of the transfer of the DPO, Patna, no hearing
took place and this fact has not been denied by the respondent
authorities in their counter affidavit, that any hearing was
conducted by the DPO or not. Further from the pleadings on
record, it appears that no further notice was given to the
petitioner and no date was fixed by the respondent authorities
for appearance of the petitioner, to place her case and all of a
sudden, by the impugned order dated 25.09.2012, the order
relieving the petitioner from the post of Anganvadi Sevika was
passed. From the order impugned itself it appears that only one
notice was given to the petitioner on 11.08.2012 and no further
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
18/19
notice/date was fixed for her appearance, to place her case and
the DPO, Patna, only on the basis of the submission made by the
CDPO, Mokama, proceeded to relieve the petitioner as
Anganvadi Sevika. Even the District Magistrate, Patna
proceeded to affirm the said order passed by the DPO, Patna on
mechanical ground, without taking into consideration the
grounds taken in the memo of appeal, which was filed before
the D.M., Patna, It further appears that the counsel for the
respondent no. 05 did not choose to appear, despite opportunity
granted to him. However, from the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent no. 05, it transpires that since the
Anganvadi Centre was vacant on account of relieving of the
petitioner, she has been appointed in 2016.
16. Accordingly, from the consideration made
above, this Court is of the opinion that memo no. 258 dated
10.10.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna and
memo no. 1475 dated 10.06.2013 passed by the District
Magistrate, Patna deserves to be set aside and are accordingly
set-aside.
17. The respondent authorities are directed to take
necessary steps for the reinstatement of the petitioner and
further directed to pay the petitioner salary for the period
Patna High Court CWJC No.21468 of 2013 dt.21-04-2026
19/19
11.10.2012 till 01.12.2012 i.e. the period during which the
petitioner worked and to refund/reimburse the rent for the
premises, which was taken by the petitioner after making
payment at her own level, for running the Anganvadi Kendra.
18.With the aforementioned observations/directions
the writ petition is allowed.
19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 31.03.2026 Uploading Date 21.04.2026 Transmission Date NA
