Disproportionate termination of service without clear evidence is unsustainable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 23-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. No one appears on behalf of respondent no.7.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for quashing the order contained in Memo no.1475 dated 22.9.2011 passed by the District Programme Officer (D.P.O.), Nalanda whereby the petitioner’s service as an Anganwadi Sevika at Centre no.95, Mahadev Bigha, block- Noorsarai in the district of Nalanda was terminated. Further prayer has been made to quash the order dated 10.5.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Anganwadi Case no.50 of 2011 whereby the District Magistrate, Nalanda was pleased to reject the appeal filed by the petitioner as also for quashing the order dated 18.4.2013/31.7.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal no.244 of 2012 whereby the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna was pleased to dismiss the appeal/revision filed by the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that being fully eligible, she was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika for the Anganwadi Centre at Mahadev Bigha under Noorsarai block in the district of Nalanda on 20.1.1992. She performed her duties to the satisfaction of all concerned and there was no complaint against her. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16.8.2011, as a result of certain medical exigency of having felt severe stomach pain, the petitioner sent an application for leave to the concerned Ward Member and proceeded for treatment. On her return it transpired that the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Noorsarai, Nalanda had come to her Centre for inspection. The absence of the petitioner was reported by the C.D.P.O. to the D.P.O., Nalanda. The report also incorrectly stated that the distribution of Take Home Ration (THR) was not taking place in a regular manner nor was the Anganwadi Centre being run properly.

4. A show-cause notice dated 27.8.2011 was issued to the petitioner to which she replied on 5.9.2011 and also appeared in person and explained that the Take Home Ration had been distributed to the beneficiaries.

5. By order dated 22.9.2011, the D.P.O., Nalanda was pleased to remove the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Sevika.

6. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Nalanda and the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna were both rejected by orders dated

10.5.2012 and 18.4.2013/31.7.2013.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that her removal from the post of Anganwadi Sevika for absence on a single date is extremely harsh and disproportionate to the allegations levelled against her. It is submitted that in a similar matter, this Court has granted relief to a similarly situated Anganwadi Sevika vide order dated 11.10.2017 passed in CWJC no.5539 of 2014.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. It transpires from the contents of the writ petition that on an inspection having been carried out of the Anganwadi Centre where the petitioner was posted in the capacity of Anganwadi Sevika on 16.8.2011, the Inspecting Officer found the Centre to be closed and the petitioner absent. It further transpires that on enquiry from some persons, they are said to have made allegations that there is no regular distribution of the Take Home Ration.

10. On perusal of the show-cause notice dated

27.8.2011 which mentions about the allegations/charges as stated herein above, it transpires that there is no statement naming the witnesses who are said to have made the complaint against the petitioner. The allegations of the Centre not being run properly nor Take Home Ration being distributed in a regular manner are as vague as they can be.

11. The ne