IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7460 OF 2008 REETA KUMARI, WIFE OF KAPIL DEO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NATHPUR, POLICE STATION NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA ………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NARPATGANJ –CUM- CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, NARPATGANJ, ARARIA 5. JAI NARAYAN RAI, SON OF SHIV NARAYAN RAI, MUKHIYA OF NATHPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT 6. GRAM SEWAK UMESH YADAV, SON OF NOT KNOWN, OF NATHPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, AT NATHPUR, POLICE STATION NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA …………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********* 2 03/05/2011 The order contained in Annexure-1 dated 13.11.2007 has been passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Narkatiganj, Araria cancelling the engagement of the petitioner as an Aanganbari Sevika. The ground for cancelling the petitioner’s engagement is that it was reported by the Mukhiya that the Aanganbari Centre was not functioning for the past two months. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that in fact the petitioner was running the Centre regularly and was distributing the “take-home ration” at the Centre. This Court finds that where there is serious allegation of not running the centre for the two months, it would be proper that the beneficiaries of the Centre should be examined to determine whether the “take- 2 home ration” had been distributed. The accounts etc. of the Centre would also show whether the money had been withdrawn for distribution of the “take-home ration”. Merely, on a statement of the Mukhiya, it is not safe to hold, without giving a show cause, that the Centre was not running. The Child Development Project Officer would have been the competent authority to hold such an enquiry. In the result, I quash the order as contained in Annexure-1 dated 13.11.2007 and direct that there should be an enquiry in the presence of the petitioner and thereafter an order should be passed in consonance with Clause-9 of the 2006 guidelines. The enquiry should be held within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner would not be entitled to be reinstated until the final orders are passed in this case. In case, there has been a fresh appointment, then the new incumbent would probably need to be heard before any further orders are passed in this regard. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )