APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had come before this Court for quashing of the order dated 22nd December, 2003 passed by Child Development Programme Officer, Torpa, Ranchi, Respondent no. 5 (Annexure -6), whereby her services had been terminated from the post of Anganbari Sevika. She had also prayed for consequential direction to pay the arrears of salary from October, 2001 to December, 2003. According to the petitioner, she had been appointed as Anganbari Sevika through due selection by Gram Sabha in the year 1985 after approval of the Deputy Director, Welfare Department, South Chotanagpur Commissionery, Ranchi. According to her, she had obtained her qualification from Deoghar Vidyapith in the year 1990 and had been performing her duties as Anganbari Sevika continuously. However, she was surprised to receive the letter dated 22nd December, 2003 (Annexure -5), by which she was relieved from her service communicated by Child Welfare Project Officer, Torpa, Ranchi.
(2.) THE Respondents -State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit, wherein according to the learned counsel for the respondents, it was found that she had committed serious lapses and irregularities in discharge of her duties. According to the respondents, on inspection at the centre she was found absent on a number of dates, which have been indicated at paragraph -8 of the counter affidavit. Complaints were also made by the villagers that she has not been running the centre continuously over a period of two years and there are lapses in distribution of food meant for mother and children on her part. The preliminary inquiry was conducted by the C.D.P.O., Torpa and submitted to the higher authorities. She was repeatedly served show cause notice asking her to explain her absence, but she refused to receive the same as per the service report of such letters. The respondents have stated that she was running a Hotel at Torpa which is totally against the responsibilities and duties attached to the office of Anganbari Sevika. In the circumstances, on receipt of the complaints from the C.D.P.O., Torpa, it was inquired by the respondents and absence and negligence of the petitioner was found to be true relating to serious lapses and irregularities committed by her. As a result, the respondent no. 4 recommended for termination of her services which was placed before the District Development officer who also recommended for termination of her services. Accordingly, she has been communicated by the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2003 by C.D.P.O. of her being relieved from service and her honorarium has also been stopped. According to the respondents, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a permanent post and incumbent can be removed for lapses and negligence and unsatisfactory service found at any point of time by the competent authority as per the circular dated 13th June, 1998 Annexure - H. It has been further brought on record by way of supplementary counter affidavit that after termination of the petitioner's service, Ashrita Gudiya has been appointed as Anganbari Sevika on the post on which the petitioner had been working before her termination. The said appointment has been made on 18th July 2009. Although the rejoinder to the first counter affidavit was filed, but no rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit has been filed and neither the appointment of said Ashrita Gudiya, who is said to be appointed on the same post where the petitioner was working, has been challenged despite indulgences granted by this Court to the petitioner earlier.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material on record. From the facts, which have been brought on record, it becomes clear that the petitioner had been found to be regularly absent from her duty over a period of time and serious allegations of mismanagement and unsatisfactory service in relation to distribution of food etc. to the beneficiaries i.e. mother and children under the I.C.D.S. Programme were found by the respondents authorities on complaints made by the villagers as well. The petitioner refused to accept service despite notice and ultimately the order of termination was conveyed to her which has been impugned by her. During the pendency of the writ application another lady Ashrita Gudiya has been also appointed as per the statements made in the supplementary counter affidavit whose appointment also the petitioner has failed to impugned despite indulgences and adjournments granted in the present writ application. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot be found fault with and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;