IMPORTANT POINT
The engagement of Anganwari Sevika is not a post in the Government service and does not have protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. The requirement of principle of natural justice must be complied with in cases of disengagement.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing memo dated 02.03.2012 issued by the District Programme Officer, Purnea, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled. The petitioner has further sought quashing of the letter dated 03.04.2012 issued by the District Programme Officer, Purnea, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been stopped from performing her duties on the post of Anganwari Sevika as also for quashing the order dated 20.02.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 86 of 2012 by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, whereby and whereunder the revision petition, preferred by the petitioner has stood dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was selected on the post of Anganwari Sevika vide letter dated 25.06.2007, whereupon she was discharging her duties to the full satisfaction of her superiors, nonetheless, on 21.10.2011, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner to file her reply as to why action be not taken against her for the irregularities committed at the centre where she is posted, whereupon, the petitioner had filed her show cause reply. The petitioner was again directed to file show cause reply vide notice dated 13.01.2012, whereupon the petitioner had again submitted her detailed show cause reply. It is submitted that the District Programme Officer, had then issued a show cause notice dated 16.02.2012 to the petitioner to submit her reply regarding the irregularities committed by her at the centre in question, whereupon the petitioner had filed a detailed show cause reply dated 29.02.2012, however, by the impugned order dated 02.03.2012, passed by the District Programme Officer, Purnea, the petitioner has been disengaged from the post of Anganwari Sevika and a communication to the said effect was also sent to the petitioner by the impugned memo dated 03.04.2012, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Banmankhi, Purnea. The petitioner had then filed a service appeal bearing Service Appeal No. 6120 of 2012, before the District Magistrate, Purnea on 25.04.2012, however, the same has also stood rejected vide order dated 06.10.2012, whereupon the petitioner had challenged the same by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 19978 of 2012 which was disposed off by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2012, granting liberty to the petitioner to file revision petition, whereupon the petitioner had preferred a revision petition bearing Miscellaneous Revision Case No. 86 of 2012, before the learned Court of Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, however, the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 20.02.2013.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that repeated show cause notices were given to the petitioner and the necessary guidelines have not been followed by the respondent authorities at the time of awarding the punishment of disengagement. It is also submitted that the entire action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also contrary to law.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the present case by the respondent no. 8, that the petitioner was selected as an Anganwari Sevika in the year 2007, whereafter she had completed her training and was working at Ashram Tola (Code No. 30), situated at Bishanpur Datt Gram Panchayat as an Anganwari Sevika. It is also submitted that on 20.10.2011 at 12:40 P.M., the Child Development Project Officer, Banmankhi along with the Lady Supervisor had inspected the aforesaid Anganwari Centre and had found the petitioner and only two children present there, however, the Sahayika was found absent and the food had also not been prepared, however, the petitioner was not punished and was left with a warning. Again on 12.01.2012, inspection was conducted, whereupon it was found that