IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4359 of 2009 Asha Devi, wife of Ajay Kumar Singh, resident of village- Salonachak, P.S. Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai. ………….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2.The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Collector-cum-Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger 5.District Welfare Officer, Lakhisarai, Distt- Munger 6.Director, I.C.D.S., Govt. of Bihar, Patna 7.The District Magistrate, Munger 8.The Child Development Project Officer, Lakhisarai, Munger. …………….. Respondents ----------- 2. 04/02/2011 Petitioner’s appeal after remand from this Court has been rejected by the Commissioner by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-15. The Commissioner has found many irregularities and lapses committed by the petitioner in running of the Anganbari Centre. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had appeared and produced large number of documents in support of her case that due to regular disturbances nearby the Centre she was compelled to shift the Centre to other place and that large number of beneficiaries had given in writing that she was properly performing her duties in distribution of Take Home Ration. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Commissioner has not 2 looked to those documents and has merely proceeded on the basis of some vague assumption that the petitioner had made default in her duties. He submits that though it is recorded in the order that the Commissioner has looked her explanations and documents, but the same were actually not done. He submits that the order suffers from bias also as only two days after inspection petitioner was directed to be removed without any explanation being called for from her. If the documents were available on record, as filed by the petitioner or otherwise, it was appropriate for the Commissioner to look into the same and deal with the same before rejecting the defence of the petitioner. That has not been done. In normal course, this Court would have directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter and specifically deal with the documents as may be available on record filed by the petitioner or otherwise after setting aside the order of the Commissioner. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner has levelled allegation of bias on the part of the Commissioner, petitioner is directed to move the Director, 3 I.C.D.S. against the said order of the Commissioner with a clear affidavit in respect of the documents which she had filed before the Commissioner and which were not considered. If petitioner files her representation before the Director, I.C.D.S., the Director, I.C.D.S. will be well advised to call for the entire records from the office of the Commissioner, look to the documents and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. I.A.No.4783 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner for stay of fresh process of selection which was going to be held. Due to lapse of time, selection process may have been completed and since learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform this Court with regard to up-to-date development in the selection process, the said I.A. is rejected. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)