IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10970 of 2010 1. Gunjan Kumari W/O Sanjay Kumar Bharti R/O Vill.- Raghunathpur, P.S. Bhargama, Distt.- Araria 2. Rekha Kumari W/O Deepak Kumar R/O Vill.- Raghunathpur, P.S. Bhargama, Distt.- Araria Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Araria 3. The District Welfare Officer-Cum-Program Officer, Araria, Distt.- Araria 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Bhargama, Distt.- Araria 5. The Mukhiya, Raghunathpur Grampanchayat, P.S. Bhargama, Distt.- Araria ----------- 2. 11.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners, Anganwari Sewika and Sahaika at Centre No. 169, Mavesi Tola, Ward No. 11 and 12 at Village-Raghunathpur are aggrieved by the orders of the District Programme Officer dated 29.6.2009 as affirmed in Appeal by the District Magistrate dated 16.3.2010 unseating them from their posts on grounds of alleged dereliction in discharge of duties. It is submitted that the C.D.P.O. inspected the Centre on 26.6.2009, confirmed in writing that the centre was open, the petitioners were present and that he gave instructions to increase the number of beneficiary children and ensure distribution of Take Home Ration between 9 A.M. to 1 P.M. It is submitted that no other deficiency was noticed by 2 the C.D.P.O. Contrary to the same the District Programme Officer in his order holds that the centre was found closed. The finding of the District Programme Officer is therefore perverse and reflects complete non-application of mind. Counsel for the State submits from the appellate order that the C.D.P.O. had emphasized that no proper preparations for distribution of Take Home Ration had been found by him during inspection and he was of the opinion that a show cause should be called for from the petitioners. No further discussion is required in the matter from the stand taken by the respondents themselves. It is more than apparent that what the C.D.P.O. stated before the appellate authority was not the part of the report dated 26.6.2009. That itself confirms that the petitioners have been denied an opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations that they had not made proper preparations for distribution of Take Home Ration when no such finding has been recorded during inspection on 26.6.2009. Applying the principle laid down in (2004)2 PLJR 833 that the basic minimum requirement of natural justice had to be complied with before the Agent, Anganwari Sewika/Sahaika 3 could be removed from service, the impugned orders dated 29.6.2009 and 16.3.2010 are set aside but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents afresh in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)