Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna, whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika has been terminated as also the order dated 26.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna in Anganbari Appeal Case No. 44 of 2013 whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that in the year 1997 the petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sevika for Bhatgaon West Centre Panchayat, Barh, Patna, whereupon she had joined her services on 10.12.1997 and was working punctually, however, all of a sudden in the month of July, 2012 the petitioner was served with a notice dated 24.07.2012 asking her to submit her explanation, whereupon the impugned order dated 05.11.2012 was passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna, against which the petitioner had filed an appeal, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.05.2014, relevant portion whereof is being reproduced herein below: –

^^fuEu U;k;ky; ds vkns'k Kkikad vkns'k Kkikad 318 fnukad 10-01-2013 esa mYysf[kr gS fd fnuakd 16-07-2012 dks 9%30 cts vkaxuckM+h dsUnz HksVkxk¡o iañ Hkkx] dksM la[;k 99 dk vkSpd fujh{k.k js.kq dqekjh] efgyk i;Zosf{kdk }kjk fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dsUnz ij ik;k x;k fd lkekftd vads{k.k ugha fd;k x;k] lgkf;dk fcuk vkosnu fn;s vuqifLFkr Fkh] dsUnz ij dksbZ iath ugha Fkh] iks"kkgkj forj.k dk HkaMkj.k@iSdsfVax ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] lkekU; Vh-,p-vkj- ,oa lcyk Vh-,p-vkj- dk forj.k de ek=k esa fd;k x;k Fkk] cpiu fnol ,oa lkekftd vads{k.k ugha fd;k x;k FkkA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ik;h x;h mDr vfu;ferrk ds fy;s ftyk izksxzke inkfèkdkjh iVuk ds i=kad 1576 fnukad 24-07-2012 }kjk vihykFkhZ lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk ls Li"Vhdj.k iwNrs gq, lacafèkr i{kdkjksa dks lquus ds i'pkr vihykFkhZ lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk dks p;ueqDr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA
fo}ku lgk;d ljdkjh vfèkoDrk }kjk vihykFkhZ ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi fopkj.kh; ugha gSaA
vihykFkhZ vuqifLFkr] vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk mifLFkr ,oa lgk;d ljdkjh fo}ku vfèkoDrk mifLFkrA
mHk; i{k ds rdZ ,oa vfHkys[kc) dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk lsfodk }kjk vius dsUnz dk lapkyu fu;fer :i ls ugha fd;k tkrk gS lkFk gh vihykFkhZ }kjk vius mij yxs vkjksiksa ds cpko esa dksbZ Bksl lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ dks dsUnz lapkyu esa dksbZ :fp ugha gSA bl izdkj fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr p;ueqfDr vkns'k U;k;laxr gS ,oa blesa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gSA
vr% mi;qZDr of.kZr rF;ksa esa vihykFkhZ ds vihy dks vLohd`r djrs gq, ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] iVuk ds 318 fnukad 10-01-2013 dks laiq"V fd;k tkrk gSA**

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been afforded adequate opportunity of hearing, she has been working diligently since past 15 years and the District Programme Officer, Patna has acted merely on the report of the supervisor who had inspected the Centre on 16.07.2012 and had found that neither the relevant register were available nor the stock of the meals was found nor social audit is being conducted, apart from the fact that low quantity of THR was found to have been distributed and children day was not being celebrated, however, without any conclusive evidence.

4. The Ld. counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that a bare perusal of the reply of the petitioner to the show cause issued by the District Programme Officer, Patna, annexed as Annexure-2 to the present writ petition would show that most of the allegations have not been denied by the petitioner, however, she has made a lame excuse about the timing of the conduct of the inspection. It is further submitted that the guidelines which govern the services of Anganbari Sevika, provides that in case of even a single dereliction in duty, the services of such Anganbari Sevika is required to be dispensed with, hence there i