IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6166 of 2011 Kumari Rekha, wife of Binay Prasad, resident of Village – Neema Hundrahi, P S - Kasma, District - Aurangabad Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3. District Programme Officer, Aurangabad. 4. Child Development Project Officer, Rafiganj, District – Aurangabad. 5. Mukhiya, Arthua Gram Panchayat, District – Aurangabad. ----------- 03. 16.08.2011 The District Magistrate, Aurangabad has passed order dated 8.2.2011 in Service Appeal No. 55 of 2010. Effect of the order is that petitioner stands removed from the post of Anganbari Sewika. The origin of the dispute is that a kind of inspection was carried out in the centre of which petitioner was supposed to be the Anganbari Sewika. On the date of inspection i.e. 26.6.2009 petitioner was not found at the centre which was viewed seriously by the respondents and process was initiated to remove the petitioner from the post. Petitioner offered explanation that due to a medical problem she had made an application to the Mukhiya of the village for leave. Initially petitioner consulted doctors at Patna who advised her to go to Vellore for further treatment. Looking at the seriousness of the issue she proceeded to Vellore, had to undergo surgery and soon after recovery she reported back to the centre when she learnt about the developments which took place behind her back. 2 It is the stand of the petitioner duly supported by evidence that not only she made application for leave which was authorized by the Mukhiya but there is evidence to show that petitioner in that period had obtained medical advice , if not intervention at Christian Medical College, Vellore. The supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner has many annexures, which on verification supports the explanation offered by the petitioner. In other words, there was a bonafide reason for the petitioner to abstain from her responsibility at the time when inspection was made or thereafter, but by a cryptic order that explanation offered by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, order of removal was passed and upheld by the District Magistrate. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State and having perused the materials on record, the Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the authority concerned , especially the District Magistrate, has dealt with the matter in a very cursory manner and valuable right of the petitioner has been taken away without looking into all the materials which were produced along with explanation offered by the petitioner and the enclosures therein, which would be established from perusal of Annexure-6. If a decision is rendered by a quasi judicial authority without taking all the materials into account, then merely saying that there is no satisfactory explanation given will not do 3 because obviously the order is passed on extraneous consideration without application of mind. To that extent Annexure-7 dated 8.2.2011 is quashed. Writ is allowed. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to report for work in the capacity of Anganbari Sewika as if she is never removed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)