JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

In the LPA paper, inadvertently name of the appellant has been shown as Ranju Devi at some of the pages, therefore, the appellant is hereby directed to rectify the same by incorporating the appellant’s name as Ranju Kumari during the course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

3. The present L.P.A. is directed against the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in CWJC No. 829 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the civil writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

4. Brief facts of the case is that on the allegation that the appellant, being the Anganwari Sevika, was not running the Centre at the notified place, i.e., Primary School, Chakdiwan and she was running the Centre in the temple of a private person and for some other allegations, an explanation letter was issued to the appellant on 19.12.2011 and subsequently, a reminder was issused on 16.01.2012. In her reply dated 17.01.2012, the appellant admitted the same but has tried to explain that since there was insufficient space at the notified place, i.e., within the Primary School, Chakdiwan, she was compelled to run the Centre from the temple and as soon as she finds a proper place, she would shift the Centre. Thereafter, on the said allegation, the appellant has been removed as Anganwari Sevika from Centre No. 27 of Nagar Parishad, Sheikhpur vide order contained in Memo No. 101 dated 13.02.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Sheikhpura. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2012 filed Misc. Case No. 06 of 2012-13 before the Collector, Sheikhpura, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Collector, Sheikhpura. Thereafter, the appellant preferred revision bearing Revision No. 46 of 2012 before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger and the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 10.12.2014 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Collector.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.12.2014 of the Divisional Commissioner, Munger and order passed by the appellate authority and the order of the District Programme Officer dated 13.02.2012 by which the petitioner’s selection as Anganwari Sevika for the said Centre has been cancelled, the petitioner (appellant herein) preferred CWJC No.829 of 2015. The learned Single Judge, finding no reason to interfere with the aforesaid orders, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. Hence, the present L.P.A.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after submission of explanation and in view of the denial of the allegation by the appellant, no enquiry, in any form, was conducted by the District Programme Officer, Sheikhpura nor any oral or documentary evidence was taken by him either in support of allegations or against the allegations. The appellant was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and to adduce evidence in support of her explanation or in respect of the denial of the allegations made against her. But the respondent no.4, all of a sudden and without prior information to the appellant and without hearing her, passed an ex-parte order on 13.02.2012. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. The aforesaid material is suffice to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge and order of removal from service.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Anganwari Centre of the appellant was inspected by the Additional Collector, Sheikhpura on 15.12.2011 and several irregularities were found at the Centre. The appellant was asked to submit explanation on the point that board was not displayed on the Centre, there was no management of latrine and drinking water, only five children were found in uniform, the stock was not shown on demand, most of the days 60% of the children were absent, the Centre was running in a te