IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2308 of 2011 SANGEETA KUMARI, W/O SRI VIJENDRA KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-NAYATOLA BARIYARPUR, P.S.- BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PATNA. 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. 5. THE MONITORING OFFICER (ANUSHRAWAN PADADHIKARI) I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE, PATNA. 6. THE MUKHIYA, PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHAMPAPUR, BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 01.04.2011 It appears that petitioner had moved this Court earlier through CWJC No.9950 of 2009 challenging an order of the Director, I.C.D.S. cancelling her engagement. This Court found that the petitioner had not been given any show cause notice by the Director, I.C.D.S. before the said order was passed on the ground of some alleged irregularity committed by her in managing the centre. Accordingly, by order dated 19.08.2009, as contained in Annexure-8, petitioner was given liberty to challenge the order before the Divisional Commissioner by filing appeal/revision who was directed to consider the same in accordance with law. In 2 compliance to the said orders of this Court, petitioner filed her appeal/revision before the Divisional Commissioner which has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, by impugned order dated 28.09.2010, as contained in Annexure-1, on the ground that the appellant could not show any provision of law under which an appeal lay before him against any order of the Director, I.C.D.S. The writ application was filed on 03.02.2011 with service of two copies of the same in the office of learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed. It appears that the Divisional Commissioner has not appreciated the letter and spirit of the orders of this Court. The moment, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file her representation before him it meant that the order of the Director, I.C.D.S. was not to be taken into account and the Divisional Commissioner was required to examine the complaint in respect of the alleged irregularity committed by the petitioner in managing the centre on its merits and pass orders. However, under the 3 present Guidelines, the power lies with the District Programme Officer to hold an enquiry in respect of functioning of centre and cancel the appointment of Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika on the proved charges of commission of any irregularity in managing the centre. In the circumstances, the said order of the Director, I.C.D.S. dated 30.04.2008, as contained in Annexure-4, and the order of the Commissioner dated 28.09.2010, as contained in Annexure-1 are quashed. However, this Court gives liberty to the District Programme Officer to hold an enquiry in respect of functioning of the centre, if allegations/reports are available on record in respect of irregularities being committed by the petitioner and, after hearing the parties, take a final decision 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.)