GITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 2nd February, 2012 made by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 349 of 2012. After a round of litigation, under order dated 12th December, 2009 made by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, the appellant has been removed from service as Anganbari Sevika, Anganbari Center No. 16, Piru (East), P.S.-Haranpura, District-Aurangabad on the allegations that on the date of inspection she was absent from service and that although the record showed presence of 31 children, only 7 children were present. It was also alleged that for preceding last one month, the appellant had not distributed the Ration. Order of the District Magistrate has been confirmed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya on 17th November, 2011. The challenge to the said order in CWJC No. 349 of 2012 has failed. Therefore, this Appeal.

(2.) The Appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of removal from service deserves to be quashed on the sole ground that the appellant had not been given opportunity to meet with the allegations made against her. It is admitted that at no point of time the appellant had been given a notice to show cause why for the reasons record, she should not be removed. In absence of the notice to show cause, the appellant was not expected to meet with the allegations made against her. The impugned order of removal from service has, thus, been made in violation of the principles of the natural justice and also the guidelines issued by the State Government.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd December, 2012 made by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 349 of 2012 is set aside. CWJC No. 349 of 2012 is allowed. The impugned order dated 12th December, 2009 made by the District Magistrate in Anganbari Service Appeal No. 39 of 2009 and the appellate order dated 17th November, 2011 made by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Appeal No. 70 of 2010 are quashed and set aside.