IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4268 of 2008 MANJU KUMARI, WIFE OF KAUSHAL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PATHALGARH, P.S. BODH GAYA UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT GAYA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, GAYA. 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, BODH-GAYA. ---- RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Neeraj Nandan, Advocate ----------- 2 19.4.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-6, issued vide memo no. 2259 dated 28.11.2007 by which her engagement as an Anganwari Sevika has been terminated on the ground that she had not distributed the take home meal to the children of the centre in question. The said order was passed after the Child Development Project Officer had inspected the centre and found it closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main question that has arisen in this writ application is that the said order contained in Annexure-6 has been passed without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner. Clause 10 of the guidelines framed in 2006 specifically state that a show-cause is required to be served 2 before passing an order adversely affecting the incumbent. The order impugned indicates that the District Magistrate, Gaya has terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that there was a Government Notification in the newspaper informing all the Anganwari Sevikas the manner in which they were to run the centre and it is further stated that if it was found that there was any anomaly in performing of the job, the incumbent would be terminated without any show cause. Counsel for the State on the other hand submits that there is a provision for appeal against the order of the District Magistrate. Undoubtedly there is a provision for appeal against the order of the District Magistrate, however, where the Court finds that the principles of natural justice has not been followed, it would not be proper to dismiss the writ application on the ground of alternative remedy. In the circumstances, the order contained in Annexure-6 dated 28.11.2007 is quashed with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the District 3 Magistrate, Gaya who will hear the petitioner and then pass a reasoned order within a period of one month on receipt of a copy of this order along with the representation. In the mean time, further appointments shall remain stayed. However, the reinstatement of the petitioner will depend on the out come of the proceeding before the District Magistrate, Gaya. This writ application is allowed in the terms mentioned aforesaid. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)