IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.308 of 2008 MANORAMA DEVI , Wife of Bahadur Singh, resident of Village- Budhua, P.S. Akhorhigola, District-Rohgas. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna 3. The Director, Intigrated Chief Development Scheme( IC.D.S.), Bihar,Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram 5. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas ,Sasaram 6. The Chief Development Project Officer, Dehri-cum- Akhorhigola, Rohtas --------------- Respondents ----------- 2 13-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate,Rohtas dated 5.6.2007 removing her from the post of Aanganbari Sevika allegedly on the ground of First Information Report stated to have been lodged on 28.7.2005. The learned counsel for the State urges that the institution of the First Information Report was sufficient evidence of the dissatisfaction with the discharge of duty by the petitioner. The First Information Report states that it has been learnt that she was not operating the distribution at the centre properly. The report also reflects that the funds given to the centre for the disbursement have been mis-utilised . The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the allegation is of non-performance as Anganbari Sevika, a previous show cause notice and consideration thereof before the termination was a must in terms of Division Bench decision of this Court , reported in 2004(2) PLJR 833. Even if this Court was to accept - 2 - the contention for the sake of argument that the institution of the First Information Report were sufficient for disengagement without invoking the principles of natural justice , the question still arises as to what will happen if no chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner till now lending credence to her submission that the allegations were unfounded and if she had been given an opportunity, she would have satisfied the authorities . The order of termination dated 5.6.2007 is not sustainable in its present form, which is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Rohtas to re-decide the issue in light of the Division Bench decision of this Court and the contention on behalf of the petitioner that there has been no chargesheet till date, by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. The application stands disposed. NKS/- ( Navin Sinha, J)