IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2995 of 2011 RESHMA DEVI, W/O RAJ KISHORE MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE-RAJANDIPUR, P.O.-SABOUR, P.S.-SABOUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ........ PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SABOUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 8. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJANDIPUR, BLOCK SABOUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 9. SMT. DHARAMSHEELA DEVI, W/O NOT KNOWN, CHAIRMAN OF WORKING COMMITTEE, ANGANWARI KENDRA HARIJAN TOLA, RAJANDIPUR, SABOUR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ........ RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 08.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A surprise inspection was held by the Deputy Director, Welfare of the petitioner’s centre on 12.06.2009. He found the centre closed and reported the matter. Enquiry was held and the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which she replied that since take home ration was not purchased by the Committee, there was no take home ration in the centre and due to hot whether the guardians of the childrens had requested the 2 children to be sent back early. Accordingly, the petitioner had allowed the children to go back after taking the Khichri at 11:00 AM and had closed the centre. Her show cause was not found satisfactory by the District Programme Officer. Hence, on the findings of irregularity committed by the petitioner in running the centre her engagement was cancelled. Petitioner moved this Court against the said order and this Court disposed of the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the said order before the Collector. Accordingly, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Collector against which petitioner filed a representation before the Divisional Commissioner which was also dismissed by order dated 08.12.2010, as contained in Annexure-9. After going through the order, it appears that it was placed before the Commissioner by the C.D.P.O. that fund for purchase of take home ration was released on 09.06.2009 itself and it was the responsibility of the petitioner to receive the cheque and purchase the ration which she 3 did not do. The Commissioner has found that under the Guidelines the responsibility lay with the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika and not the Committee to purchase the ration and deliver it to the centre. He has also found that to close the centre early petitioner had neither obtained permission of any higher authority nor had intimated about the same. From the order, it is apparent that all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by her learned counsel has been considered by the Commissioner and has not been found as tenable. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the Commissioner nor finds any error of record. As a result, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)