IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7254 of 2010 JYOTI SAXENA W/O ASWANI KUMAR R/O VILL.- PARSA, P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA ………… PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, KOSHI PRAMANDAL, SAHARSA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, MADHEPURA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GWALPARA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, GWALPARA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 7. THE MUKHIYA, TEMABELA GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.S. GWALPARA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 8. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV, TEMABELA GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.S.- GWALPARA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA ……. RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 27/01/2011 In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.2.2009 of the District Programme Officer, Madhepura, as contained in Annexure-4, by which her engagement as Anganbari Sevika has been cancelled. She has also challenged the order passed by the Collector in appeal, as contained in Annexure-6 and the order passed in revision by the Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-8. It appears that Take Home Rasan Centre managed by the petitioner was inspected by the District Programme Officer on 13.2.2009. During inspection, he found the Centre closed. Therefore, by Annexure-2 dated 14.2.2009 a show cause notice was issued to 2 her. Petitioner submitted her show cause reply vide Annexure-3 in which she accepted that due to some pain in her stomach, she had left the Centre earlier, therefore, during inspection she was found absent. The show cause was considered and the District Programme Officer, vide Annexure-4 passed order cancelling her engagement. Against the said order, petitioner moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.6405 of 2009, which was disposed of by order dated 20.5.2009, as contained in Annexure-5, directing the Collector to consider the pending representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner was considered and was rejected by impugned Annexure-6, against which the petitioner again moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.11249 of 2009 which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 14.12.2009, as contained in Annexure-7, to enable the petitioner to avail alternative remedy before the Commissioner. Petitioner availed the remedy and filed her revision which has also been rejected by the Commissioner by impugned 3 Annexure-8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical circumstances, case of another Anganbari Sevika was allowed by the Commissioner vide Annexure-9 in which he found that there was some laxity in holding inspection and therefore inspection report could not be relied upon for taking action against the concerned Anganbari Sevika. He also submits that in case of said Anganbari Sevika, Commissioner took into account that Mukhiya, Sarpanch and District 20-Point member had recommended that the said Anganbari Sevika was performing her duties properly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Mukhiya has also given a certificate to the petitioner vide Annexure-1, in which it is stated that she was present at the Centre on the date. Petitioner herself had accepted in her reply to the show cause that she had closed the Centre and had left as she had developed pain in her stomach and was also suffering from measles. Hence it is not disputed that at the time of inspection the Centre was found closed. With her reply to the show 4 cause, petitioner has not annexed any document or any medical certificate to show that she was suffering from measles and she had in fact pain in her stomach and she had consulted the doctor immediately after closing the Centre. The order of the Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-9, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner shows that in that case the concerned Anganbari Sevika was not given opportunity to file her show cause and produce materials against the charges leveled against her. In the present case, petitioner was given opportunity to show cause and she did file her reply to the show cause. As said earlier, except for a bald claim that she was suffering from measles and she had developed pain in her stomach, there are no other materials with the show cause to substantiate her claim. This Court has looked to the typed copy of the certificate of Mukhiya, annexed as Annexure-1. The date under the signature of the Mukhiya is mentioned as 23.1.2009 and not 23.2.2009. Along with the said Annexure- 1, there is a typed copy of list of beneficiaries of the Centre. It is a typed 5 copy without signature and it is only mentioned therein that the beneficiaries have put their signature and thumb impression. Even if petitioner had been given certificate by the Mukhiya on the date of inspection or thereafter, there is nothing in her reply to the show cause that she produced this certificate and list of beneficiaries of the Centre with her show cause reply for consideration by the authorities. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ application. The same is dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)