Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul i.e. the respondent no. 6, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika at Centre no. 09, Musahari Tola, Thumha, Block-Pipra, District-Supaul has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.08.2013, passed by the Collector, Supaul in Appeal Case no. 25 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has stood dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that while the petitioner was working as Anganwadi Sewika at Centre no. 09, Musahari Tola, Thumha, Block-Pipra, District-Supaul, she was served with a letter dated 24.07.2012 containing an allegation levelled against her regarding the irregularities, found during the inspection conducted by the respondent no. 6 on 06.07.2012, whereafter the petitioner had appeared before the authorities and submit her explanation, however, the District Programme Officer, Supaul, by his order dated 27.08.2012, has cancelled the selection of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika, whereafter the petitioner had challenged the same by filing an appeal which was numbered as Appeal no. 44 of 2012, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the learned Collector, Supaul by an order dated 16.10.2012.

3. The petitioner had then filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 2777 of 2013 challenging the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul as also the appellate order dated 16.10.2012 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.02.2013, had though not interfered with the original order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the respondent no. 6 but had held the appellate order dated 16.10.2012 to be a cryptic and a non-speaking order, hence, had quashed the same and remanded the matter back to the Collector, Supaul for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by the learned Collector, Supaul and then the impugned order dated 14.08.2013 has been passed by the learned Collector, Supaul, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner herein and this is how the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Collector, Supaul has again passed a cryptic and a non-speaking order, hence the same is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2023 (1) PLJR 323 (Mehin Nigar Begum vs. State of Bihar) to contend that a formal inquiry is required to be held before passing of the order of removal from service and on this ground as well, the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted, by referring to the original order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the respondent no. 6, that serious irregularities were detected by the respondent no. 6 at the time of inspection which can be culled out from the said order dated 27.08.2012, relevant paragraph whereof, is reproduced hereinbelow: –

^^fiijk ifj;kstuk ds dsUæ dksM&09 eqlgjh Vksyk] Fkqegk ij dsUæ lapkyu esa vfu;ferrk ds lacaèk esa fnukad 04-08-2012 dks vèkksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa lquokbZ dh x;hA mDr dsUæ ij ftyk Áksxzke inkfèkdkjh] lqikSy }kjk Lo;a fnukad 06-07-2012 dks fujh{k.k fd;k x;k] vkaŒ dsUæ ij pkSdh] eos'kh ,oa pkjk j[kk gqvk FkkA dsUæ ij cksMZ ugha yxk gqvk Fkk ds vkyksd esa bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 1064@ÁksŒ fnukad 24-07-2011 }kjk lsfodk lqeu dqekjh ls Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax dh x;hA fnukad 28-07-2012 dks mifLFkr jgdj viuk i{k j[kus dk volj fn;k x;kA ysfdu mDr frfFk dks lquokbZ esa mifLFkr u gksdj fnukad 04-08-2012 dks lquokbZ esa Jherh lqeu dqekjh mifLFkr gqbZA
fnukad 06-07-2012 dks 11-30 cts Á'uxr dsUæ dk vèkksgLrk{kjh }kjk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds le; dsUæ ij ek=k 04 cPps mifLFkr ik;s x;s ftuesa