IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.4634 OF 2008 RITA SINHA, WIFE OF BINOD KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUSTAFAPUR, POLICE STATION KHAGAUL, DISTRICT PATNA. AT PRESENT, RESIDING AT NEAR RAJ NAMKEEN BHANDAR, ASHIYANA ROAD, POLICE STATION DIGHA, DISTRICT PATNA ………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHILD DEVEOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, PATNA 6. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, KOTHWAN, BLOCK DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, KOTHWAN, BLOCK DANAPUR, DISTRICT PATNA …………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******* FOR THE PETITIONER : MS SUSHMITA MISHRA, ADVOCATE. FOR THE STATE : MR. BINDESHWAR KUMAR, AC TO GP XII. 3 22/04/2011 The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 28.1.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna by which the engagement of the petitioner who was working as an Aanganbari Sevika has been terminated. The said termination is based on a report of the Child Development Project Officer, dated 8.12.2007. The pleadings reveal that the petitioner was ill treated by her husband, who used to beat her up every day. She filed an application before the D.I.G. of Police making a complaint against her husband on 27.12.2007. Due to aforesaid circumstances, she could not move out of her house and, thus, she addressed a letter to the Chief Development Project Officer vide Annexure 6 2 informing him that she has not been able to attend the Centre for ten days and is, thus, returning the money which was meant for the “take home ration”. It has also come on record that the petitioner has made an application to the Subdivisional Officer, Danapur that she is unable to perform her duty because her husband was acting as a deterrent to her performing her duties, and he was not allowing her to go to the Centre. She, thus, prayed for protection and that steps may be taken by the authorities concerned to protect her. In this background the Child Development Project Officer has reported that the petitioner is not attending the Aanganbari Centre No. 49, Mustafapur, Panchayat Kothwa which has resulted in the issuance of the impugned order. The Counsel for the State submits that the District Programme Officer would be the proper authority who can pass an order of termination under 2010 Guidelines with respect to dismissing Aanganbari Sevika or Sahayka after hearing them, for not performing their duties. Learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to a clarification issued by the State Government published on 11.5.2010. Clause (4) of the letter indicates that after the Government had issued letter no. 2723, dated 25.7.2008, the District Magistrate should transfer 3 all such matters pending before him to the District Programme Officer. In the present case the order was passed on 28.1.2008 whereas the cut off date as mentioned in the letter is 25.7.2008. As such the District Magistrate was within his jurisdiction to pass the order. According to 2010 guidelines published recently by the State Government the District Programme Officer has the authority to hear the matter relating to termination of engagement of Aanganbari Sevika and Sahayka. The appeal lies before the District Magistrate. It is, therefore, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the District Magistrate has passed the order terminating the engagement of the petitioner, she would have no remedy in the appeal. However, this issue would not arise in this case, in view of the fact that the District Magistrate has passed the order within the cut off date as mentioned earlier. The question now is that whether the petitioner would be entitled to issuance of a show cause in view of the facts which have been stated in this order. It is admitted by the petitioner that she was unable to perform her duty as Aanganbari Sevika albeit for good reason. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, I think it would be proper that the matter should be remanded to the District Magistrate to enquire into the 4 circumstances under which the petitioner was not performing her duty considering that she has made serious allegations against her husband. Such a woman should be given due protection and the District Magistrate should take appropriate steps in the matter by informing the Officer Incharge of the concerned police station and thereafter examine whether it would be possible for the petitioner to continue as Aanganbari Sevika, considering the fact that she has not deliberately absented herself from the Centre. In my opinion, if the facts stated by her are true, she requires same financial independence to maintain herself with dignity. To achieve the aforesaid purpose the petitioner may file a representation before the District Magistrate, Patna along with a copy of this order who will take all appropriate steps and pass an order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation and a copy of this order. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )