IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16843 of 2009 SUNAINA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 27.01.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Programme Officer dated 6.8.2009 removing her from the post of Anganwari Sevika as affirmed in appeal by the District Magistrate dated 6.10.2009. Learned Counsel for the State does not deny that under the rules the leave application of the petitioner was to be routed through the Mukhiya to the Panchayat Sachiv. Equally he does not dispute the position the factual ground on which the leave application had been submitted has not been found fraudulent or imaginary either by the original authority or by the appellate authority. The petitioner submitted her leave application to the Mukhiya and it was the duty of the Mukhiya to forward it to the Panchayat Sachiv. These procedures were not the concern or duty of the petitioner. If the Mukhiya defaulted, it was he who had to be proceeded with appropriately. The petitioner cannot be made a scape goat for the procedural irregularities not under her control. The contention of the appellate authority that presumably the Mukhiya was in league with the petitioner makes the order arbitrary as it takes into consideration irrelevant materials on conjectures and surmises without any foundational fact. The order of the District Magistrate in appeal does not at all deal with regard to the delinquency of the Mukhiya but only finds fault with the petitioner alone. The impugned order dated 6.10.2009 is accordingly set aside. This application is allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)