#procedural lapses

The Appellant was not served with a show cause notice to defend herself violates the principles of Natural Justice hence High Court of Patna Quashed the Termination order of the Aganbari Sewika.

The termination was made solely on the grounds of pending criminal charges and the appellant was acquitted of the criminal charges therefore it is deemed inappropriate when she is acquitted.

Since the third-party interest was already created hence reinstatement was not feasible. The Court balanced the need for justice for the appellant by directing compensation instead.

Shubhadra Kumari v. The State of Bihar and 6 others

Letters Patent Appeal 828/2019

Before the High Court of Patna

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P B Bajanthri & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey J

Fact:

Shubhadra Kumari, was selected as an Anganbari Sevika in 2003. She was implicated in a criminal case in 2013, as such she was terminated in 2014 by the District Programme Officer (DPO) of Nalanda. Her termination was upheld by the Deputy Director (Welfare) of Patna Division in 2014. Subhadra Kumari-appellant challenged this decision before the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge in 2019, leading to the present appeal.

Legal Issue:

Whether the termination of Shubhadra Kumari from the post of Anganbari Sevika was justified?

Points of Argument

Argument by the Appellant's Counsel:

The appellant had undergone training and had been discharging her duties satisfactorily since 2003, with no complaints regarding her absence before the criminal case.

Prior to the criminal case, she was ill and hospitalized, which justified her absence from work.

She was acquitted of the criminal charges in 2018, which should negate the basis for her termination.

The termination was carried out without serving a show-cause notice, without following proper procedures, and without giving her an opportunity to defend herself.

The termination was abrupt and lacked a proper inquiry, violating the principles of natural justice.

Respondents (State of Bihar and Others):

The termination was based on an inquiry report and due to her continuous absence from duty.

A notice was issued directing the appellant to appear and explain her absence, which could not be served due to her absence.

Given the serious nature of the criminal charges against her, the termination was deemed appropriate.

The termination was affirmed by the superior officers, indicating procedural correctness.

Court’s Observations:

No notice was served on the appellant, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The court emphasized that both quasi-judicial and administrative actions must follow the principles of natural justice, ensuring fair procedures and avoiding arbitrary actions.

The court referred to Supreme Court judgments (D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. and State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Agarwal) that highlighted the necessity of fair play and reasonable procedures in administrative actions.