IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15038 of 2008 USHA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SHAILENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PRATAP PUR, PS BARAHIYA, TOWN & DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAKHISARAI DISTRICT, LAKHISARAI 4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, LAKHISARAI. --- RESPONDENTS 2 28.4.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-3, passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai vide memo no. 262 dated 17.4.2008 by which he has terminated the services of the petitioner as an Anganwari Sevika working at Centre No. 31, PratapPur, Barahiya. By the same impugned order the Sahayika has also been terminated. The grounds of termination mentioned in the order dated 17.4.2008 is that when the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai inspected the centre he found that the petitioner and the Sahayika were not present on that date and as such the petitioner was issued a show-cause and after hearing her the impugned order was passed. Against the order dated 17.4.2008 the petitioner moved the Commissioner, Munger. The Commissioner, Munger for the same reasons has upheld the orders of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. In the show-cause filed on behalf of 2 the petitioner it has been specifically stated that she was unwell and was taken for treatment to a doctor and as such she could not come to the Centre on 5.4.2008. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai has rejected the plea on the ground that the petitioner ought to have filed a leave application. I find that the approach of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai is unreasonable. All employees cannot be present on each and every date of their service tenure. At sometime or the other a person may fall sick or may be required for some other urgent reason or even perhaps to attend to some family obligations, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that no leave would be granted to a Government employee or any person who is in service in some capacity or the other in the government or semi government organization. The objection of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai that the petitioner had not filed an application for leave is also unreasonable to the extent, that a person who falls sick can hardly have the opportunity to file an application on the very date she has fallen sick. Thus, some sort of leverage has to be given in the facts mentioned above. 3 This is not a case where the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai examined the villagers and found that the petitioner was a habitual absentee or that she did not distribute the food or take home ration to the beneficiaries. It is one time absence from the centre which has been taken into account by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai and he has passed the order of termination which I find to be an extremely tough approach. The Commissioner likewise took the same stand and dismissed the appeal. For the reasons stated aforesaid, I find that the approach of the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai is unreasonable and, therefore, I quash the order dated 17.4.2008 issued vide memo no. 262 and the appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Munger on 13.8.2008. This writ application is allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated, as it has been stated that no other person has been engaged as an Anganwari Sevika till date. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)