IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.842 of 2009 SARITA DEVI, WIFE OF SHAILESH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE +P.O. NAWADA, P.S. JALALPUR, DISTRICT SARAN (CHAPRA). -------------Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE NIDESHAK SAMAJ KALYAN BIBHAG, I.C.D.S. NIDESHALYA, BIHAR PATNA. 3.THE UP-NIDESHAK, KALYAN PADADHIKARI, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA. 4.THE ZILA PADADHIKARI, SARAN SAMAHARNALYA (SAMEKIT BAL VIKASH SEVA KOSHANG), SARAN, CHAPRA. 5.THE BAL BIKASH PARIYAJANA PADADHIKARI (C.D.P.O.) JALALPUR, SARAN. 6.SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMA KANT SINGH, AT PRESENT MUKHIYA OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, NAWADA, SARAN, AND RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. NAWADA, P.S. JALALPUR, DISTRICT-SARAN. ------------Respondents-Respondents. ----------- 4 15-04-2010 Heard Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mrs. Binita Singh, A.C. to A.A.G.III, for the respondent-State. In this intra court appeal assail is to the order dated 7.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.4191 of 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has given the stamp of approval to the order dated 26.2.2009, whereby respondent no.4 has dispensed with the services of the appellant as Sahayika in Anganbari 2 Kendra No.23, Harijan Toli, Nawada on the ground that her attendance was irregular. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that order passed by respondent no.4 is absolutely cryptic, inasmuch as, it does not even indicate number of days she has remained absent. That apart, order has not taken into consideration the show cause/explanation preferred by the appellant. In view of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is not correct and accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the order as contained in Annexure-5. Needless to emphasize, it is open to respondent no.4 to proceed against the appellant as per law, if so advised. However, same shall be done after reinstating the appellant on the post of Anganbari Sahayika if it is still vacant. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)