ORDER :

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

2. The petitioner calls in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 28-10-2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 – Additional Collector, Durg, whereby order dated 17-8-2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.5 – Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara, District Durg, terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta, has been affirmed by the learned Additional Collector.

3. The petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Aanganwadi Karyakarta in Aanganwadi Centre No.42 in selection process on 21-5-2007 which she joined on 8-6-2007. Thereafter, she was served with notice dated 17-2-2010 which she replied, but ultimately her services were terminated on 17-8-2010 by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara which she questioned by filing appeal in terms of circular dated 2-4-2008 before the Additional Collector, Durg, but by impugned order dated 28-10-2011 (Annexure P-1), the learned Additional Collector dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the CMO, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the procedure prescribed in circular dated 2-4-2008 terminating the services of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has not been followed and that has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore the order of the CMO, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara and that of the Additional Collector deserve to be set aside the petitioner be reinstated on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta.

4. Return has been filed by the State / respondents No.1 to 4 supporting the orders impugned passed by the CMO and the Additional Collector.

5. No return has been filed by respondent No.5 as well as by respondent No.6.

6. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that in order to remove the petitioner who was a duly selected Aanganwadi Karyakarta, the procedure prescribed in circular dated 2-4-2008 (clause 13) was imperative and by merely giving show cause notice, her services could not have been terminated. As such, the order of the CMO is absolutely bad in law, but in appeal preferred in accordance with clause 11 of the said circular, the Additional Collector also did not look into the same and dismissed the appeal which is ex facie illegal and bad in law and therefore the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated along with backwages.

7. Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned State counsel, would support the impugned orders which in turn was adopted by Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.5 also.

8. None present for respondent No.6, though served.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

10. Admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioner was duly selected as Aanganwadi Karyakarta, she was removed from service by order dated 17-8-2010 by respondent No.5 and appeal against the order of removal has been dismissed by the Additional Collector. The procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has been prescribed by the State Government by circular dated 2-4-2008. Clause 13 of circular dated 2-4-2008 prescribes the procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta which states as under :-

13 dk;ZdrkZvksa@lgkf;dkvksa dks in ls gVkus dh izfØ;k%&

13-1 fdlh vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds lanHkZ esa f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ij cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk lacaf/kr Ik;Zos{kd ls tkap djokdj izfrosnu izkIr fd;k tk;sxk o izkIr izfrosnu esa xq.k nks"kksa dk ijh{k.k dj f'kdk;r lgh ik;s tkus ij ;fn fdlh izdkj dk xcu vFkok xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dk izdj.k curk gS rks lacaf/kr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks ml ij ifjyf{kr gq, vkjksiksa ls Li"V voxr djkrs gq, viuk i{k j[kus dk volj iznku fd;s tkus gsrq iUnzg fnol dk le; iznku fd;k tkosxk ,oa mRrj izkIr gksus ij iqu% xq.k nks"kksa dk ijh{k.k dj U;k;ks