Compliance with the principles of natural justice and the justification for termination in the engagement of non-civil posts such as Anganwadi Sevika.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.11.2010 passed by the respondent Collector, Jehanabad in Case No. 14/D.M./2010, contained in Annexure-6, as also the order contained in Memo No. 469 dated 18.01.2009 passed by the District Programme Officer, Jehanabad by which the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika has been dispensed with/terminated on certain allegations of committing irregularities in the matter of running of the Anganwadi Centre.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of removal/termination of this petitioner mainly on the ground that while passing the impugned order the District Programme Officer has not at all considered the show cause submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even though the District Programme Officer has recorded his dissatisfaction on the show cause submitted by this petitioner but the order passed by him nowhere indicates the consideration given by him to the submissions made by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that from perusal of Annexure-3 it would appear that in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner the allegations were that the Take-Home-Ration was not distributed on the date fixed for such distribution, the foodgrains were not found in the Centre, the Distribution Register was not maintained, Khichari was not being prepared at the Centre and only 12 beneficiaries could be found in attendance. It is further alleged that on 07.10.2009 the amount was withdrawn by the petitioner but the same was not spent. The show cause notice also contains a charge that the villagers had alleged that this petitioner was residing outside and only on one day in a week she is running the Centre.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel that vide Annexure-4 the petitioner had replied to these allegations stating that about 32 children, who belonged to Scheduled Castes category, were staying in the Centre during night hours because they had no other alternative, therefore, the food grains were not stocked or kept in the Centre. She has, however, stated that for supplementary diet the food grains were available and were being distributed among the beneficiaries. She has further claimed that the amount withdrawn on 07.10.2009 for purchase of rice and pulse purchases were made and the same were kept in her house because the Community Hall was always open and poor people and workers used to take rest there. She denied the allegations made in the show cause notice. As stated above, the submission of the learned counsel is that these facts have not been considered by the District Programme Officer and the impugned order has been passed without consideration of the materials available on the record.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State submits that in the nature of the engagement of the present petitioner, what has transpired in course of inspection vide Annexure- 2 are enough for her removal/termination. Learned counsel has pointed out that from the inspection note itself it would appear that the petitioner was not maintaining the Supplementary Diet Distribution Register and the Food grains Stock Register; further from the note of the Inspecting Officer, in paragraph 20 of the inspection note, it would appear that the inspecting team found that the Distribution Register was not maintained after 22.10.2009. A sum of Rs. 10,975/- was withdrawn on 07.10.2009 from the A/c but the same was not spent. He also noted that the Centre is not running every day and the food grains are not stocked in the Centre. Even the prepared meal was not available and the villagers complained that the petitioner was living outside and had been coming to the Centre only on one day in a week. He, therefore, recommended for action after asking show cause from her.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the submission of the learned counsel repre