IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4943 of 2008 Parvati Devi, wife of Ashok Singh, Ward No.2, Bhabhua, PS Bhabhua, district Kaimur at Bhabhua – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Director, Integrated Child Dev. Scheme, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3) District Magistrate, Kaimur. 4) Dist. Welfare Officer, Kaimur. 5) Child Dev. Officer cum Executive Magistrate, Bhabhua. 6) Dist. Programme Officer, Kaimur – Respondents. 2 26.4.2011 The petitioner has challenged her termination as an Aanganbari Sevika for Centre within Ward No.1. Later the Centre was shifted to Ward No. 2 of Bhabhua as there was no accommodation for the Aanganbari Centre to run at Ward No.1. From the impugned order contained in Annexure 2, it would appear that there is an allegation against the petitioner that she was not distributing the „take home ration‟. The said inspection was made by the District Programme Officer and the Child Development Project Officer which is also annexed with the writ petition. On the basis of the recommendation of the aforesaid two officers, the Director Social Welfare has terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed under 2006 guide lines and as such she will be governed by the aforesaid guide lines for the purpose of deciding her case. Clause 9 of the guide lines provides as follows: “9. SEVIKA / SAHAYIKA PAR ANUSHASHNIK KARWAI: AANGANBARI SEVIKA / SAHAYIKA DWARA 2 APNE KARTAVYON KE SANTOSHPARAD NIRWAHAN NAHIN KIYE JANE, OON KE DWARA ANIMIYATTA BARATE JANE, 15 DINON SE ADHIK ANUPASTHIT RAHNE, APRADHIK GHATNA MAIN SHAMIL HONE PAR OON SE ASPASTIKARAN POOCH KAR BAAL VIKASH PARIYOJNA PADADHIKARI/ ZILA ASTRIYE ANYA NIRICHAK PADADHIKARI OONHE CHAYAN MUKTA KARNE KI ANUSHANSHA SAKCHYON SAHIT ZILA PADADHIKARI KO OOPLABDH KARAIN GE.” It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Director does not have the power to terminate the petitioner‟s engagement as Aanganbari Sevika. It is further submitted that she ought to have been given a show cause notice before the order of termination was issued. As per 2010 rules the District Programme Officer is the competent authority to examine the cases where there is dereliction of duty. However, under the 2006 rules it is the District Magistrate who is to examine this aspect. In this case since the District Programme Officer is the person who has conducted the enquiry, it would not be proper for him to be appointed as the disciplinary authority as per 2010 rules. In the aforesaid circumstances I direct the Director, Social Welfare to send the report along with a copy of this order to the District Magistrate, Kaimur within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the District Magistrate. On receipt of the report of the District Magistrate, the petitioner 3 should be issued notice and thereafter she should appear before the District Magistrate who will decide the issue after hearing her within a period of two months. In case fresh appointments have been made in this case in the year 2010, the new incumbent should also be heard. I accordingly quash the order, dated 23.1.2008 passed by the Director Social Welfare, Bihar and the consequential order, dated 5.2.2008 contained in Annexure 8 as far as this petitioner is concerned. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to the consequential relief on quashing of the order until a final decision is taken in her case. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)