IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18701 of 2011 1. Anita Devi wife of Sanjay Yadav 2. Sabita Devi wife of Ramchandra Yadav Both residents of Village-Jagata, Tola Dhanha, P.S. Raniganj, District-Araria. …….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 3. The District Magistrate, Araria. 4. The District programme Officer-cum-District Welfare Officer, Araria. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Raniganj, Araria. …..Respondents. ----------- 2. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.C. to G.P. 20 for the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by Commissioner, Purnea Division, in Appeal No. 58 of 2010-11 by which he has affirmed the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Araria in Case No. 02 of 2010-11 dated 28.01.2011 as well as the order passed by the District Programme Officer, contained in Memo. No. 96 dated 26.02.2010 by which the selection of the petitioners as Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika have been cancelled. Learned counsel submits that the order passed is without any application of mind, in a routine manner on the basis of the averment made in the counter filed by the District Programme Officer, Araria. He submits that the petitioners were chargesheeted on 3 counts and they submitted specific reply on all the three counts but in the impugned order her explanation had not even been mentioned much less considered. He submits that in any view of the matter since the appeal 2 had to be disposed off by a reasoned order after considering show cause of the petitioner, the same not having been done cannot be sustained. After going through the order impugned, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. The concerned appellate authority was obliged to deal with each and every charge and the explanation given by the petitioners and only then should have arrived at his own conclusion. There is absolutely no mentioning of any of the charges or explanation by the petitioner and thus it is obvious that there has been absolutely no application of mind. For the reason aforesaid, the said order being unsustainable in law is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Purnea for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Commissioner would be obliged to pass a reasoned order, considering the explanation offered by the petitioners on each and every charge. The said order should be passed expeditiously and in any case within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order upon him. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands allowed. Saif/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)