IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14211 of 2010 1. Sunita Kumari W/O Mithilesh Prasad R/O Vill.- Wajitpur, P.S.- Ketari, Distt.- Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Tekari, Gaya 2/ 23/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.4.2008 of the District Magistrate unseating her from the post of Angan Bari Sevika as also the refusal of the appellate authority, the Commissioner, to entertain the appeal against the same by order dated 16.7.2009 on alleged grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the removal of the petitioner is on grounds of alleged dereliction in discharge of duties as an Angan Bari Sevika. Under the guidelines of 2006 the appropriate authority to examine the same was the District Programme Officer and appeal would lie against his order before the District Magistrate. In the present case, the appellate authority has usurped the powers of the original authority. The petitioner has been deprived of the remedy of an appeal. Learned counsel for the State submits that 2 the writ petition itself acknowledges that the petitioner has been removed after giving an opportunity of giving a show cause and considering the defence. Right of appeal is a valuable right. It is an additional opportunity to the aggrieved for satisfying the appellate authority that he or she had done no wrong and was being unjustifiably punished. Deprivation of a right of appeal is a serious matter. If the appellate authority has usurped the powers of the original authority, the impugned order dated 9.4.2008 is not sustainable as it deprives the petitioner of an additional opportunity to demonstrate innocence. The Court could easily have set aside the impugned order and left matters at that, at the discretion of the respondents to proceed afresh if they so desire. But, equally an Angan Bari Sevika has a limited to right to a show cause notice before removal as an agent of the principal. That has been complied with. The Court considers the suggestion of the State counsel reasonable that the writ application may be disposed off with directions to the Commissioner to act as an appellate authority as the guidelines are not statutory, but merely executive in nature. If the petitioner is so advised, she may prefer an appeal before the Commissioner within a period of 3 30 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let the appeal itself be disposed off within a maximum period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt/production of presentation of the same by a reasoned and speaking order. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)