IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8033 of 2010 Meena Kumari, wife of Babunand Bishwas, Resident of Village Sihrol, P.O. Maheshpur, P.S. Pipra, District Supaul…………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 2. Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa. 3. Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar. 4. District Magistrate, Supaul. 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul. 6. District Programme Officer, Block Pipra, District Supaul. 7. Child Development Project Officer, Block Pipra, District Supaul. 8. Mukhiya, Maheshpur Panchayat, Block-Pipra, District Supaul……………………………….………….Respondents ----------- 2. 25.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. By order of the Collector dated 29.12.2009, as contained in Anenxure-24, engagement of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled. Petitioner moved the Commissioner against the said order where she took a stand that before the Collector she was not given an opportunity which was necessary, in compliance to the Principles of Natural Justice, though her husband was present. The Commissioner in his order has noticed nine grounds which were taken into 2 account by the Collector for cancelling her engagement and has held that her grievance was that due to participation in Pulse Polio Programme, she could not defend her case. Since her husband was present before the Collector, the Commissioner held that this plea could not bring any relief to her. In the circumstances, he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that besides taking the stand that she was not heard by the Collector, petitioner had also produced materials before the Commissioner against the nine allegations leveled against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the Commissioner found that appearance of the husband of the petitioner before the Collector was sufficient, the Commissioner should have examined the papers and materials produced by her against the said allegations and should have decided the matter on merits in stead of rejecting the appeal only on the ground that 3 appearance of her husband before the Collector was sufficient. From the order of the Commissioner, it appears that hardly any material produced by the petitioner in respect of allegations has been considered by him except there being one sentence that the records show that supervisor’s signature was missing from purchase register since April 208 as a routine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in 2004 and since then she had continued to work, to the full satisfaction of the authorities till April, 2008, when the new Child Development Project Officer joined and thereafter trouble started against her. He submits that Child Development Project Officer was manipulating the records and creating evidence against the petitioner with mala fide intention to get her removed by hook or crook. He submits that if the records are examined and the enquiry is held by any impartial and independent officer of the Government, under control of the 4 Commissioner, the actual truth will come out. Considering the fact that the order of the Commissioner does not discuss any alleged material produced by the petitioner in respect of allegations levelled against her, the order of the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for reconsideration. Petitioner shall personally appear before the Commissioner within four weeks from today and upon her such appearance, she will be allowed to file a formal representation with all supporting documents in defence of her case. Upon filing of such representation, a firm date shall be fixed by the Commissioner for personal appearance of the petitioner and for hearing and thereafter the matter shall be finally heard and disposed of by a speaking order discussing and taking into account all the materials produced by her in her defence. If necessary, the Commissioner shall get an enquiry held by an independent and impartial officer under 5 his control, and definitely other than the Child Development Project Officer, and thereafter decide the matter on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that a new Anganwari Sevika has been appointed in the meanwhile. It will be appropriate for the Commissioner to issue notice to the newly appointed Anganwari Sevika also, hear her and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This application is allowed in the manner, as stated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)