IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2905 of 2010 1. NILAM KUMARI W/O DILIP KUMAR YADAV R/O VILL.- SIRISIAKALA, P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA 2. LATA KUMARI W/O JAWAHAR YADAV R/O VILL.- SIRISIAKALA, P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA 3. ANITA DEVI W/O AMRENDRA KUMAR YADAV R/O BHAIYA RAM BISHANPUR, P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA 4. KARI DEVI W/O TULSI SARDAR R/O VILL.- BHAIYARAM BISHANPUR, BLOCK+P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, THE INTEGERATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT (I.C.D.S.) PROJECT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, ARARIA 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, DISTRICT CONFIDENTIAL SECTION, DISTT.- ARARIA 7. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, FARBISGANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (C.D.P.O.) BLOCK- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA 9. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SIRISIA KALA, BLOCK+P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA 10. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT SIRISIAKALA, BLOCK+P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA ----------- 2. 27.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2009 passed by the District Programme Officer terminating their services from the post of Anganwari Sewika/ Sahaika after selection and training. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is mechanical in nature and in cyclo-styled format by merely filling in the blanks. This is indicative of completely non-application of mind. 2 This Court does not consider it necessary to decide that issue at this stage in view of the specific assertion of the petitioners that there was an enquiry report in their favour submitted by the C.D.P.O. dated 5.10.2007. Additionally, it is specifically asserted in Paragraph-24 of the writ petition and in the supplementary affidavit that it has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice without issuance of a show cause notice to them held to be mandatory by a Division Bench of this Court in 2004(2) PLJR 833. Counsel for the State submits that the matter may be remanded to the District Magistrate for examination. The impugned order dated 3.1.2009 is set aside. This shall not result in immediate reinstatement. From the date that the petitioners file their application before the District Magistrate, the latter is required to decide within three weeks as a preliminary issue whether a show cause notice was issued and served upon the petitioners prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 3.1.2009. If the District Magistrate arrives at a conclusion that no show cause notice was issued and served, he is required to proceed no further at this stage and direct reinstatement of the petitioners forthwith. This 3 shall be without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed in accordance with law thereafter if they so wish. If the District Magistrate is satisfied that show cause notice was issued and served before issuance of the impugned order, it shall pass a speaking order to that effect within three weeks when it shall be open for the petitioners to raise all other contentions which they may be advised to do when the District Magistrate shall then be required to dispose off the entire issue by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of such initial order passed by him. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)