IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14975 of 2011 Chandrabala Devi wife of Sahab Tiwari, resident of Village- Padhouti, Post Office Paharian, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur, at present C/o Munib Prasad Jaiswal, in front of Electricity Office, Bhabua (shop of iron rod), Ward No. 3 at Bhabua, Police Station-Bhabua, District-Kaimur. .........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Director, I.C.D.S., Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Kaumur (Bhabua). 4. District Programme Officer, Kaimur (Bhabua). 5. Child Development Project Officer, Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabua). 6. The then Mukhiya namely Arjun Singh, Gram Panchayat Padhouti, Police Station-Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabua). ........Respondents ----------- 02 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for respondents Petitioner was selected on the post of Anganbari Sewika way back in the year 1984. She was supposed to operate the centre at Padhouti Centra No. 1 under Bhagwanpur Block, then District of Rohtas now District of Kaimur. Petitioner joined the centre in 1985 and has been working in that capacity without any complaint of any kind ever having been raised against her. A sudden inspection was carried out on many centers, working in the District which included the centre of the petitioner on 23.11.2007. A report was furnished to the District Magistrate by the District Programme Officer, listing out the centre which was found to be closed or non-functional and on the basis of such report, the District Magistrate has passed the orders of removal against such 2 persons including the present petitioner. The order in question is contained in Annexure-8 where list of all the centers including the Sewikas’ name figures by a common order, the District Magistrate has ordered removal of one and all. The submission on behalf of petitioner while assailing the impugned order contained in Annexure-8 dated 23.01.2008 is that this order had been passed in complete breach of the laid down procedure by the State in this regard. The manner in which the order of removal has been passed indicates that there has been no individual application of mind to the issue nor has there been any effort to issue notice or a show cause to the concerned Sewikas or them having been given an opportunity of hearing to explain their conduct. This requirement is very much provided for in the year 2006 Policy and a breach thereof would entail interference with the order. The law is already settled in this regard and if no show cause and notice has been issued coupled with the lack of opportunity of hearing and a speaking order not being passed in the above background, the same is required to be interfered with. From a reading of the order under challenge, it is evident that these aspects do not emerge, therefore, Court is left with no option but to quash the order contained in Annexure-8 and remand the matter back to the concerned authority with a direction that the show cause would have now issued to the petitioner individually and after accepting or considering the explanation, so offered a final decision would be taken with regard to her status. 3 It is also recorded that petitioner had filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which came to be dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable before him. Such an order any way will have no effect on the issue, because the matter will be now heard and decided afresh by the competent authority. This writ application is allowed with the reasons indicated above. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)