IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6259 of 2009 SANGITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 19.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Whenever a person is appointed by an appointment letter in writing, his/her removal from service must also be in writing. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Sevika and therefore if there was any dereliction of duty, she ought to have been either given an order of suspension or removal from service. From the enquiry report of the Child Development Project Officer dated 18.4.2008, it would appear that Center Code No.102 of the petitioner situated at Jafarpatti was inspected at about 11.00 Am. and certain discrepancies were found. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter she has been not allowed to work on an oral order pending certain enquiry. The petitioner claims that she has kept on representing her case for either being allowed to work or being paid her remuneration but then they have not made any impact till date and hence this writ 2 application. As this situation has continued for more than one year now and in such a situation when the subordinate authorities have not taken ay step for allowing the petitioner to work, this Court would direct the Collector of Vaishali district to look into the matter and take a final decision one way or the other. In order to expedite the matter, this Court would direct the petitioner to file a comprehensive detailed representation with document in support of her claim and the Collector of the Vaishali district would pass a reasoned order dealing with such grievance of the petitioner and the same must be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of filing of such representation. With the aforementioned observations/ direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)