WP(C) 5448/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms . P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. The petitioner, who was appointed as Anganwadi Worker by Annexure-1 Offi ce Order dated 5.5.95, is aggrieved by the Anneuxre-10 communication dated 21.7. 2009, conveying the decision to discharge the petitioner from service, which was pursuant to several show cause notices issued to her on account of unauthorised absence from duty, a fact which has been admitted by the petitioner herself. Going by the very nature of appointment and even otherwise also, an Anga nwadi Worker does not hold any post, so as to claim protection as envisaged unde r Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In the appointment order itself, it was stipulated that her engagement as Anganwadi Worker was purely temporary on p ayment of honorarium. Such engagement are made in the interest of public service and for proper implementation of the ICDS scheme formulated by the Central Gove rnment. By Annexure-3 show cause notice dated 30.6.08, the petitioner was direct ed to submit reply as to why action should not be taken for her unauthorised abs ence without any prior intimation to the superior authority. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted her Ann exure-4 representation dated 18.9.2008, in which she clearly admitted her unauth orised absence with the following statement :- & & &.But did not submit any application for leave of my marriage before the Man ging Committee or my superiors and this was my fault & & & & &.. Thereafter due to lness I could not attend office to resume my duty. I also suffered another few d ays due to my thye and back side of my body for which I was unable to sit and do wn. The syndrome of which are still existence in my body & & & & After the aforesaid show cause reply, another show cause notice was issu ed to her on 23.4.2009 to which also her reply was not satisfactory. Unlike the earlier stand referred to above, her reply to the show cause notice was that due to fever for about 22 days, she failed to perform her duty and that due to her several sufferings from fever she failed to attend the Centre. The 3rd show cause notice was issued on 5.6.2009 to which also, her repl y was that she could not attend duties due to her illness. The 4th show cause notice was issued to her on 12.6.2009 to which she di d not submit any reply for which she has furnished her explanation in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, which is reproduced below :- 13. That in pursuance of the aforesaid show cause notice dated 12.06.2009 the p etitioner tried her level best to collect the copy of the resolution and decisio n of the Anganwadi Centre Managing Committee (AWCMC) to submit her reply but the Managing Committee of her Anganwadi Centre refused to furnish the same and acco rdingly the petitioner could not submit her report in time. The petitioner there after could come to know that under the instruction of the Respondent No.4 the m anaging Committee refused to give the said copy of the Resolutions. The aforesaid stand in paragraph 13 of the writ petition is absolutely f alse as would be evident from the Annexure-11 appeal dated 28.10.2009, which she had submitted to the authority agitating her grievance against the discharge fr om service. Be it stated here that by the impugned Annexure-10 communication, sh e was intimated about the discharge from service as Anganwadi Worker. In the sai d appeal, her stand was that for submission of the reply and the report with the resolution copy of the AWCMC, it took some time but in the mean time her servic e was dispensed with. In the said appeal, there was no such allegation as has be en made in the aforesaid paragraph 13 of the writ petition. Thus, the stand in p aragraph 13 of the writ petition is an after thought. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have highlighted about the unauthorised absence of the petitioner from her duties ever since she was appointed way back in 1995. The affidavit states about issuance of 5(five) show cause notices to her. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it has been stated t hat the appointment of Anganwadi Worker is not against any post and that it is p urely an engagement for implementation of schemes and no mandatory service rules is attached with such engagement. As already noted above, the petitioner never held any post but she was e ntrusted with the works pertaining to Anganwadi Centre as Anganwadi Worker on fi xed honorarium. The very purpose of appointment of Anganwadi Worker is to see im plementation of ICDS projects launched by the Central Government. If the Anganwa di Worker fails to discharge the allotted duties, needless to say that the inhab itant of Anganwadi Centres suffer. The petitioner cannot claim protection as tha t of an employee holding a civil post. As has been held by the Apex Court in (C hannabasappa Basappa Happali Vs. State of Mysore) reported in AIR 1972 SC 32, ad mission of the allegation made in the charge amounts to admission of guilt level led in the said charge. In the instant case, the petitioner herself having admit ted her fault and the task with which she was involved render her unsuitable to discharge the duties and functions of an Anganwadi Worker. Situated thus, the re spondents have no other option but to discharge her from the engagement of Angan wadi Worker, I see no reason to interfere with the order of discharge. Writ petition is dismissed, without however, any order as to costs.