Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.6.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria, whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika has been terminated as also for quashing of the appellate order dated 29.7.2013, passed by the District Magistrate, Araria, whereby and whereunder the appeal has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sevika at Centre No. 82, Lalpur Tola, Majhua East, Block-Raniganj, District- Araria, on 19.10.1985. The petitioner and some other Sevikas of the nearby centres had made written complaint to the District Magistrate, Araria against the then Child Development Project Officer, Raniganj and on account of his grudge, the Child Development Project Officer, Raniganj, had conducted an inspection of the centre in question on 20.5.2009, whereafter a show cause notice dated 13.6.2009 was issued to the petitioner by the District Welfare Officer, Araria, alleging therein that no children were present at the centre in question & the centre was found closed on the date of inspection, which is a gross irregularity and misconduct under the ICDS guidelines. The petitioner had then submitted her reply on 29.06.2009, however, the District Welfare Officer, Araria, by an order dated 18.6.2009 i.e. prior to filing of the reply to show cause, had terminated her services.

3. The aforesaid order dated 18.6.2009 was challenged in appeal before the District Magistrate, Araria, however, the same was upheld by an order dated 22.12.2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Araria. The petitioner had then challenged the said order dated 18.6.2009, passed by the District Welfare Officer, Araria and the appellate order dated 22.12.2011 before this Court, by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 6890 of 2012 and a coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 03.05.2012, had set aside the appellate order dated 22.12.2011 and remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate, Araria, only for the limited purpose of granting an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations levelled against her by the covillagers regarding her failure to discharge her duties. The District Magistrate, Araria, has then by the impugned order dated 29.7.2013, rejected the appeal of the petitioner by observing therein that on the date of inspection i.e. on 20.05.2009 and on 12.6.2009, the centre in question was closed and the petitioner was missing, hence, the same being instances of gross negligence and misconduct, no interference is required in the order dated 18.6.2009, passed by the District Programme Officer, Araria. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce herein below the relevant portion of the Appellate order dated 29.07.2013: –

^^vihydÙkkZ ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk dk eq[; dFku gS fd fnukad 12-06-2009 dks vkaxuckM+h dsUæ [kqyk FkkA vkaxuckM+h dsUæ dk lapkyu fofèkor~ fd;k tk jgk FkkA fdlh Hkh inkfèkdkjh }kjk vkaxuckM+h dsUæ dk fnukad 12-06-2009 dks fujh{k.k ugha fd;k gSA fnukad 20-05-2009 dks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] jkuhxat }kjk bl vkaxuckM+h dsUæ dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k FkkA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh ds le{k muds lg;ksxh xkM+h pkyd Jh Ánhi ;kno }kjk muds ?kj esa ?kqldj vkaxuckM+h ls lacaèkh iaft;ksa dks ysdj pyk x;kA lacafèkr iaft;ksa dks ysus og ifj;kstuk xbZ rks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] jkuhxat lacafèkr iaft;ka nsus ls euk dj fn;kA rRi'pkr~ mUgksaus Fkkukè;{k] jkuhxat ds le{k ,d vkosnu lefiZr dh] ftl ij vU; lsfodk dk Hkh gLrk{kj gSA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh] jkuhxat ds fujh{k.k Áfrosnu fnukad 20-05-2009 esa xfBr vkjksi ds lacaèk esa fo}ku ftyk dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds }kjk lsfodk ls fnukad 29-06-2009 rd Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax dh xbZA lsfodk us fnukad 29-06-2009 dks fo}ku ftyk dY;k.k inkfèkdkjh] vjfj;k ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj Li"Vhdj.k tokc nkf[ky fd;kA blh njE;ku vij lekgÙkkZ] vjfj;k ds }kjk fnukad 12-06-2009 dks dfFkr fujh{k.k Áfrosn