The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment of termination must be commensurate with the alleged charges and should not violate the rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also emphasized the insensitivity of authorities in taking a hyper-technical view in termination cases.

MOHIT KR. SHAH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Kamur at Bhabua by which the appeal of the petitioner herein, against the order of termination dated 29.04.2012, has been dismissed as well as the order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna whereby and where under the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Collector has been upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for being appointed as Anganwari Sewika at Anganwari Centre, Panjraon and after interview and counselling, she was appointed by a letter dated 06.09.1991 issued by the Child Development Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.D.P.O.'), Kaimur at Bhabua. The petitioner had rendered her services satisfactorily without any complain and had also obtained training from the Bihar State Aids Control Samiti. It is the further case of the petitioner that one Anganwari Sahakiya, namely, Smt. Dharmsheela Devi, who was posted at Anganwari Centre, Panjraon-III, was engaging in malpractices, pursuant whereof the petitioner had complained before the C.D.P.O., Nuaon, Kaimur. Subsequently, the petitioner fell ill and gave a leave application to the C.D.P.O. on 09.02.2012 for grant of leave from 09.02.2012 to 21.02.2012 and the same was duly received in the office of the C.D.P.O. where after the petitioner was treated at Shekhar Shalya Chikitsalaya, Patna from 10.02.2012 to 21.02.2012. In the absence of the petitioner, inspection is said to have been made on 21.02.2012 and the petitioner was found absent, though she was on medical leave. Thereafter, the petitioner had again fallen ill and had come to Patna for being treated on 04.04.2012 and was under treatment with effect from 10.04.2012 to 08.05.2012. The authorities had asked explanation from the petitioner with regard to her absence on 21.02.2012 and thereafter they had terminated the services of the petitioner herein, by an order dated 29.04.2012. It is further case of the petitioner that the aforesaid order dated 29.04.2012 was appealed against before the learned Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua in Anganwari Appeal Case No. 6 of 2012-13, however, the learned Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua, by an order dated 13.02.2013 has been pleased to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was found absent on 21.02.2012 during the course of inspection and moreover it has been informed by the Sahiyaka that the petitioner herein stays at Bhabua, visits the centre only on two days in a week and is always engaging in abusing and beating people. The said order dated 13.02.2013 was challenged in Anganwari Appeal Case No. 249 of 2013, before the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, however, the same has been dismissed by an order dated 30.12.2014.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner herein is too harsh and is not commensurate to the charges levelled against her i.e. one day's absence from duty.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the impugned orders dated 13.02.2013 and 30.12.2014 have been passed after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. It is further submitted that upon an enquiry made by the respondent no. 7 by visiting the centre where the petitioner was posted, he found only two children at the centre and the petitioner was also absent. However, only Sahayika, namely, Smt. Dharmsheela Devi was present at the Centre on the said date i.e. 21.02.2012, who informed that the petitioner used to stay at Bhabua and used to come only on two days in a week.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the present writ petition suffers from delay and laches.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The on