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, terminating the engagement of the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Sewika as also for quashing the order dated 14.08.2013, passed by the Collector, Supaul i.e. the respondent no. 5, in Appeal case no. 24 of 2013 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Anganwadi Sewika.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner is that she was appointed as Anganwadi Sewika at Center code no. 46 situated at Dhatta Tola Basaha, Block-Pipra, District-Supaul, however, subsequently, an inspection was made by the District Programme Officer on 19.06.2012, whereupon she was served with a letter dated 24.07.2012, containing certain allegations and seeking her explanation, whereafter the petitioner is stated to have appeared before the respondent no. 6 and filed her detailed explanation, however, her services were terminated by the impugned order dated 27.08.2012, which was then challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector, Supaul, however, the same has also stood rejected by the impugned order dated 16.10.2012. The petitioner had then challenged the said order dated 27.08.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Supaul and the Appellate order dated 16.10.2012, by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 2727 of 2013, which was partly allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2013, inasmuch as the appellate order dated 16.10.2012, passed by the Collector, Supaul was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, Supaul for passing a fresh order. Thereafter, the Collector, Supaul had considered the matter afresh and passed a reasoned and a speaking order dated 14.08.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that merely on frivolous allegations, the services of the petitioner has been terminated, hence, the impugned order dated 27.08.2012 and 14.08.2013 are fit to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case, that upon inspection being made of the Center in question on 19.06.2012, several irregularities were found and only 10 children were present apart from inadequate meal having been prepared for feeding the children present there as also the standard of pre-school teaching was found to be very poor, hence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after consideration of the same, the District Programme Officer, Supaul by the impugned order dated 27.08.2012, had passed an order of removal of the petitioner from services, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Collector, Supaul, however, the same was also rejected by an order dated 16.10.2012, which in turn was challenged by filing of a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 2727 of 2013 and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.02.2013, had quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter back to the Collector, Supaul for fresh consideration. It is further submitted that the Collector, Supaul by the impugned order dated 14.08.2013, after considering the written arguments submitted by the petitioner, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner by a reasoned and a speaking order upholding the order of removal of the petitioner from services. It is thus submitted that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted for removal of the petitioner from her services and only on account of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in running the Center in question, she has been removed from her services.

5. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. First of all, this Court would refer to a judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2004(2) PLJR 833 (Sajjan Devi vs. St