IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2329 of 2009 PUNAM KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 19/2/2009 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26th June, 2008, whereby and whereunder, her engagement on the post of ANGAN BARI SEVIKA has been terminated on the ground of certain allegations as mentioned in the order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order of termination was passed without complying the principles of natural justice, in as much as, neither any notice nor an opportunity of hearing was given to her. He would also refer to Clause-9 of the guidelines issued by the State Government with regard to selection and functioning of ANGAN BARI SEVIKA wherein it has been envisaged that in case of any allegation necessitating termination of service, the ANGAN BARI SEVIKA will be afforded an opportunity for explaining her position. Clause-9 of the aforesaid guideline reads as follows:- 2 9- lsfodk@lgkf;dk ij vuq’kklfud dkjZokbZ & vkWaxuckM+h lsfodk@lgkf;dk }kjk vius dRrZO;ksa ds larks"kizn fuoZgu ugha fd;s tkus] muds }kjk vfu;ferrk cjrs tkus] 15 fnuksa ls vf/kd vuqifLFkr jgus] vkijkf/kd ?kVuk esa 'kkfey gksus ij] muls Li"Vhdj.k iwNdj cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh@ftyk&Lrjh; vU; fujh{kh inkf/kdkjh mugsa p;u eqDr djus dh vuq’kalk lk{;ksa lfgr ftyk inkf/kdkjh dks miyC/k djk;saxsA There seems to be little scope for any speculation that such order of termination of service of the petitioner was passed by the Collector of Gaya district without strictly complying the aforementioned Clause-9 of the guidelines. In that view of the matter, the remedy of appeal will be nugatory as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Purshotam Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 1958 S.C. 36. This Court would accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 26th July, 2008 sofar it relates to the petitioner pertaining to the post of ANGAN BARI SEVIKA at Bara within the district of Gaya. The Collector of Gaya district is hereby directed to supply a copy of the inspection report of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) dated 9.5.2008 to the petitioner within a period of fifteen 3 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, whereafter the petitioner must file her explanation in the next fifteen days and thereafter the Collector of Gaya district will pass an appropriate order within a period of one month of filing of such explanation by the petitioner. It is made clear that till the Collector of Gaya district completes the aforementioned exercise the petitioner by virtue of the present order of quashing of her termination will not be entitled to continue on the post and claim salary for the post till final order is passed by the Collector. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar