IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2376 of 2010 1. JAYMALA KUMARI W/O SRI AMRENDRA KUMAR R/O VILL MAKROI, P.S.PIPRA, DISTT-SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT (I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE) GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SUPAUL 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, SUPAUL, P.S.SUPAUL, DISTT- SUPAUL 6. MISS SARITA D/O SRI LAKHMIKANT JHA R/O QUARTER NO.F/2,KOSHI PROJECT ,SAHARSA,P.S.SAHARSA,DISTT-SAHARSA,PRESENTLY POSTED AND WORKING AS THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,PIPRA,P.S. PIPRA,DISTT-SUPAUL 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, PIPRA, P.S.PIPRA, DISTT-SUPAUL 8. NUTAN DEVI, W/O SRI PARAS NATH BISHWAS R/O VILL MAKROI, P.S.PIPRA, DISTT-SUPAUL ----------- 02. 16.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 4.10.2008 as affirmed in Appeal on 23.11.2009 removing her from the post of Anganbari Sewika. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without a show cause notice and liberty to explain the circumstances. Learned counsel for the State points out from Annexure-2 that the C.D.P.O. had visited the Distribution Center. The petitioner had also come to the Distribution Center at that time. The C.D.P.O. put questions to the petitioner, why the Distribution Center 2 was closed. Instead of her answering it, her husband resorted to assault. A First Information Report has been lodged by the C.D.P.O. against the petitioner and her husband with regard to the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the conduct of the C.D.P.O. himself in coming along with certain other were questionable and she has also filed a Complaint Case against the C.D.P.O. and others. This Court in 2004 (2) P.L.J.R. 833 (D.B.) (Smt. Sajjan Devi & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others) has held that Anganbari Sewika do not hold a Government post and are not entitled to the same protection. They are merely agents of the State Government in the implementation of the welfare scheme. If the principal was not satisfied with the discharge of their duties, the Principal was at liberty to dispense with their services. A reasonable restriction had only been read into by this Court, that such removal shall be in compliance with the principles of natural justice. What natural justice shall mean would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Natural justice can mean a written show cause notice, it can also mean a verbal explanation called for. The 3 petitioner does not deny that the C.D.P.O. had come to her center and made queries. Instead of answering the queries, her husband resorted to muscle power. This Court therefore is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present the petitioner had an opportunity to rebutt the charges which were disclosed to her. Thereafter it becomes a matter of sufficiency of materials to be examined by the Executive authorities. That has been done by the District Magistrate and the Commissioner. It shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to reconsider the sufficiency of the material only because it may be possible for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion on the same materials. The fact that a prosecution has been filed against the petitioner by a Government functionary and that she has also filed a complaint case against the Government functionary, in the entirety of the matter is an aspect which cannot be overlooked in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court on the aforesaid discussion arrives at the conclusion that there is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)