IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5504 of 2010 Mustari Khatoon, Wife of Md. Sharfuddin, Resident of Sanichar Bazar, Navi Nagar, P.s. Navi Nagar, District Aurangabad (Bihar)……………………………………………….…………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project, Beltron Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad, D.D.C. Aurangabad, District Aurangabad, Bihar. 6. Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad Sadar, District Aurangabad. 7. District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Project Co-ordinator, Bihar Education Project, Aurangabad. 8. The Co-ordinator, (N.P.E.G.E.L.), Bihar Education Project, Aurangabad, District Auranagabad, Bihar………………………………………Respondents ----------- 3 20.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Annexure-C is an office order of the District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Co-ordinator, Bihar Education Project, Aurangabad dated 25.11.2009 by which, pursuant to the resolution of the District Executive Committee of the Bihar Education Project dated 24.11.2009, petitioner’s engagement as District Resource Group has been cancelled. 2 This order has also been challenged by the petitioner by filing an interlocutory application. The proceeding of the Executive Committee dated 24.11.2009 is annexed as Annexure-8 with the writ application. From agenda no.4 of the said proceeding it appears that there was some report against the petitioner of having defalcated some amount released in respect of the programme. Neither agenda nor the proceeding shows that petitioner was issued any show cause notice in respect of such allegation or was given any opportunity to file any representation explaining her conduct. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order as contained in Annexure-C has also been confirmed in the next meeting of the Executive Committee, copy whereof is Annexure-D. However, he fairly admits that the records do not show that prior to issue of such order, petitioner was ever granted any opportunity to file show cause. He submits that the appointing authority has power to cancel engagement of the petitioner and in exercise 3 of that power, this order has been issued. The order may have been issued on the basis of the decision taken by the Executive Committee which is the competent body to take decision in the matter. Still the question remains that engagement of the petitioner was being cancelled on the ground of certain allegation for which she was never noticed and that she was not given any opportunity to show cause. However, since the allegation is of defalcation of money against the petitioner, this Court does not feel it appropriate to quash the order of her disengagement at this stage. Therefore, petitioner is directed to file a representation before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad explaining her conduct in respect of such allegation of defalcation of money. If any representation is filed within two weeks, the District Magistrate shall provide a fair opportunity to the petitioner to appear before him, shall hear her and shall come to a definite finding in respect of the allegations against her. In case he finds that the petitioner was not guilty of such 4 defalcation, the said order cancelling her engagement shall be recalled from the date of issue of the order itself and petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits and shall be allowed to function in the capacity in which she was appointed by Annexure-1. In case no final decision is taken either way within two months from the date of filing of representation, the order as contained in Annexure-C, and challenged by the petitioner and annexed as Annexure-14, shall stand quashed. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)