IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6420 of 2008 Seema Devi, wife of Indal Singh, village Bharari Kala, PS Chand, District Kaimur at Bhabua – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 2) Director, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3) The District Magistrate, Kaimur. 4) The Dy. Dev. Commissioner, Kaimur. 5) Block Dev. Officer, Chand, Kaimur. 6) Child Dev. Project Officer, Chand, Kaimur. 7) Dist. Programme Officer, Kaimur. 8) Dist. Welfare Officer, Bhabua – Respondents. 4 12.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Bihar issued under memo no. 1045, dated 14.3.2008. The aforesaid order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner on the ground that there is an order of the Supreme court passed in SLP No. 196/2001 that it is not required to issue notice to Aanganbari Sevika / Sahaika who are not performing their duties diligently or, who are acting contrary to the guide lines framed by the State Government. The Director has also taken into account the report of the Block Development Officer, dated 11.1.2008 at Annexure 2 of the writ petition. I may state here that in SLP No. 196/2001 the Supreme court has not passed any order, which is to the effect that notice is not to be given to Aanganbari Sevika or Sahaika before passing an order terminating their engagement. Referring to Annexure 2, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Block Development officer visited 2 the Centre at 12.15 PM on a Friday. He found that Khichri was being distributed to the beneficiaries at the Centre. The requirement is that on every second and fourth Friday of the month Aanganbari Sevika / Sahaika should distribute the take home ration. The petitioner informed the Block Development Officer that she has already distributed the take home ration on first Friday of the month and as such the beneficiaries were being fed Khichri on the second Friday of the month. It is surprising that the Block Development Officer did not inspect the register or accounts of the school to verify whether the statements of the petitioner was correct or not, and blindly held that she had not performed her duties diligently. The Block Development Officer ought to have verified the facts by examining the beneficiaries to ascertain whether the take home ration had been distributed. The aim to establish Aanganbari Centre is to distribute food to the persons who have been defined under the guide lines as the beneficiaries. It is perhaps in order to maintain discipline and some sort of uniformity that it has been decided that the ‘take home ration’ should be distributed on second and fourth Friday. If, Aanganbari Sevika by virtue of some reason distributes the take home ration on a Friday prior to the Friday allotted, this court cannot hold that such a person has completely violated the guide lines for which the Centre has been established and is guilty of not performing her duties. It may be irregular, but it is not an act which should ordinarily lead to dismissal. At the most a warning may be issued not to deviate 3 from the dates fixed by the State Government for distribution of ‘take home ration’. Learned State counsel points out that the Government has taken a policy decision as contained in Annexure-A, dated 10.10.2007 that no show cause is required to be served on Aanganbari Sevikas / Sahaikas before their termination on the ground of non-performance of their duties. The administrative decision taken by the Director, Social Welfare cannot over ride the guidelines. Clauses (8), (9) and (10) of the guide lines provides that a show cause notice is required to be issued to the delinquent concerned and that the District Programme Officer or the local authority Incharge of the Centre would be the competent authority to examine these aspects and recommend for dismissal of an Aanganbari Sevika. In the present case the Director has passed the order which is not in accordance with the guide lines. I accordingly direct that the petitioner should produce a copy of this order before the respondent Director who will send the entire records to the concerned authority under clause (9) and the authority will examine the records and ascertain whether the take home ration has been distributed by the petitioner as stated by her before the Block Development Officer. The entire matter should be concluded within six months considering the fact that it is important to run the Centre smoothly and in view of the fact that the beneficiaries would be deprived of the ration and Khickri provided to them under the guidelines. The petitioner would have the liberty to produce a copy of this order before the local 4 authority under clause (9) within a period of six weeks. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. A.F.R./ haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)