IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10408 of 2003 RAJ KUMARI DEVI, wife of Parmeshwar Prasad resident of village Asthana, P. S. Shekhpur Sarai, District Sheikhpura…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sheikhpura. 3. The Child Development Project Officer Barbigha, Sheikhpura. …Respondents ----------- 4. 13.01.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this writ petition is being filed for quashing the order/letter contained in Annexure-4 issued by the Child Development Project Officer Barbigha (Sheikhpura) vide memo no. 461 dated 16.11.2002 whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled in pursuance of the order of Deputy Development Commissioner vide letter no. 397 dated 6.11.2002 and further for issuance of writ in the same nature for quashing the order/letter contained annexure-3 issued by the Child Development Project Officer Barbigha vide Memo No. 39 dated 26.6.2002 whereby and whereunder he without asking any show cause from the petitioner has suspended the functioning of the Centre( Anganwari Centre) to be conducted by the petitioner until further order and further for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the functioning of the Centre operated by the petitioner after quashing the impugned orders passed by the respondents authority and further respondents may be directed to pay 2 the honorarium to the petitioner during cancellation as well as suspension period and also to pay her the honorarium from October 2001 to 10.7.2002 which is due and remained unpaid.” As with regard to aforementioned prayer counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 16.11.2002 cannot be sustained only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner who was selected and engaged as Anganwari Sevika on 2.6.1988 was sought to be removed all of a sudden on the basis of some order of Deputy Development Commissioner, Sheikhpura dated 6.11.2002 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit) and that too without issuing notice or affording opportunity of hearing. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the respondents have sought to explain that the engagement of Anganwari Sevika being primarily for the purpose of running the centre regularly and at least 300 days in a year when the authorities had found that the petitioner was remaining absent as a result whereof her centre was not functioning, the order dated 16.6.2002 was 3 passed suspending the functioning of the centre and also stopping her from work. The Inspection Report dated 11.06.2002 was thereafter brought to the notice of higher authorities including District Welfare Officer and Deputy Development Officer who at the relevant point of time have the power of Supervising the functioning of the Anganwari Centres and it is claimed that in terms of report of Child Development Project Officer dated 6.9.2002. the Deputy Development Commissioner by his order dated 6.11.2002 had approved the removal of six Anganwari Sevika/ Sahayika against whom there was adverse report of Child Development Project Officer with regard to functioning and discharging of duty. Counsel for the State, therefore would submit that Anganwari Sevika being not a government servant no protection can be claimed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and therefore such order of termination of service of the petitioner being primarily based on her not reporting on duty and being responsible in closure of the centre need not be interfered by this Court 4 in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In the opinion of this court, submission of counsel for the State cannot be accepted for the reason that even though the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika was not an employment in the Government, she had been vested with certain rights on account of such assignment given to her on which she had joined on 2.6.1988. If the petitioner therefore was sought to be removed from such assignment and that too on the basis of any misconduct alleged against her, she was essentially required to be heard before passing the order of termination. All that therefore in such a situation was required to give the petitioner the copy of Inspection Report dated 11.6.2002 as also the report/ material as recorded in the letter of Child Development Project Officer bearing Letter no. 360 dated 6.9.2002 wherein it was stated that the petitioner had in fact been residing in Delhi inasmuch as it was this report dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure- C to the counter affidavit) and recommendation made thereon which led to passing of order of Deputy Development Commissioner on 6.11.2002 5 (Annexure C to the counter affidavit) and the consequential impugned order dated 16.11.2002 (Annexure 4). This court accordingly must hold that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4 being in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. As a result of quashing of the impugned order, the petitioner will not be entitled to rejoin her post of Anganwari Sevika till a fresh enquiry is conducted with regard to allegation against her. Presently overall control of the scheme and the Anganwari Centres have been assigned to the Collector of the respective districts and accordingly this Court would direct the Collector of Sheikhpura District to collect all the relevant materials relating to the petitioner and her functioning in Centre no. 97, Asthana in Onama Panchayat and thereafter issue a show-cause notice alongwith those materials to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter would be at liberty to place all the materials before the Collector of the District and the Collector of the District on 6 receipt of show-cause reply of the petitioner would pass appropriate order. Entire exercise must be completed by the Collector of Sheikhpura District within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The question of payment of salary for the period October 2001 to 10.7.2002 would squarely be dependent on the further orders to be passed and in the event it is found that the petitioner was present and had discharged her duties as Anganbari Seviak for the centre in question, for the period of October 2001 to 10.7.2002 the same will also be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order by the Collector of the District. With the aforementioned observation and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)