IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12567 of 2008 ANITA KUMARI, D/O LAKSHMAN PRASAD, W/O JITENDRA MALAKAR, R/O VILLAGE-BAREO, P.S.- AKBARPUR, DISTRICT-NAWADA.........PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICER, NAWADA. 5. THE BLOCK WELFARE OFFICER, AKBARPUR, NAWADA. 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, AKBARPUR, NAWADA. .......RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 15.04.2011 The impugned order Annexure-5 dated 31.07.2008 was passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division in appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Collector dated 03.03.2008, as contained in Annexure-4. From bare reading of the order of the Collector as well as the order of the Commissioner, it is apparent that, whereas the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika was cancelled by the Collector on altogether different grounds, the Commissioner has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on another ground than the ground relied upon by the Collector in his order. The ground mentioned in the five line order of the Commissioner that the petitioner is habitual absentee and careless in performance of her duties is nowhere mentioned in the 2 order of the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner as Annexure-7 from which it appears that the petitioner had taken specific grounds against the order of her disengagement. Apparently, the ground taken in the memo of appeal by the petitioner has not been considered by the Commissioner at all and on the ground for which the petitioner was not given any notice by the Commissioner or even by the Collector he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The order of the Commissioner, Magadh Division is, therefore, clearly suffers from non-application of mind and violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Hence, the same is quashed. The Commissioner, Magadh Division is directed to restore the appeal of the petitioner, issue notice to the parties, consider the same and pass a speaking order dealing with the grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and as may be presented before him by the petitioner or her representative. He is also directed to 3 conclude the hearing and pass final orders in the matter, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)