IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13076 of 2009 LALITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02. 09.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the final appellate order of the Commissioner, Tirhut Division in Service Appeal No. 24 of 2009 removing her from the post of Anganbari Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the termination of her services as Anganbari Sevika by order dated 04.02.2008, principles of natural justice have not been complied with and no show cause notice has been issued. He submits that the grounds of termination also suffer from error of facts. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. It is not denied on behalf of the petitioner that when the inspection of her distribution centre was made she was present and answered queries only whereafter the recommendation for termination was made. This fact also finds elaborate discussion at page 7 of the order of the Commissioner. It records a finding that during spot inspection the petitioner attempted to mislead the enquiring authority also. The impugned order further notices that 2 there was a contradiction between the stand taken by the petitioner during the spot enquiry and that being urged before the Commissioner. A Division Bench of this Court in 2004(2) PLJR- 833 has held that the post of Anganbari Sevika was not akin to that of government servant and therefore they can not claim similar protection like government servants. In that case, the service centers were found closed and the Anganbari Sevika absent from the duty. Show cause notices were issued and then termination order followed. The Court held that since they were not government servant but had been engaged only for the purposes of a government scheme, and were not be paid a regular salary, the government was at liberty to deal with them if it was not satisfied with their performance impeding government schemes. No regular proceedings for removal was required but only that principles of natural justice had to be followed. What natural justice shall mean depends on the facts of the case and there can be no universal principle with regard to the meaning of the same. The petitioner on the facts of the present case can not contend that the termination order is bad being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The center was not inspected behind her back, and on which fault lay the termination. Had that been so, the situation would have 3 been very different. The petitioner was present at the center and also answered queries made with regard to allegations of unsatisfactory performance. Principles of natural justice thus stood complied. This Court can not and will not go into issues of facts sought to be urged by the petitioner with regard to her discharge of duty, an exclusive domain of the respondents. The writ petition stands dismissed. Shageer (Navin Sinha, J)