Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure-9), passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Pakur, by which she has been terminated from service as Anganwari Sevika, has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed as Anganwari Sevika in the year 1997. After appointment, she was discharging her duty sincerely without any complain. On 3.5.2012 at 8.30 A.M, the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur had inspected the said Anganwari Centre and found that the children were absent. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had given reply to the same. Thereafter, the order dated 8.6.2012 cancelling the selection of the petitioner had been passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Pakur on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. The order dated 8.6.2012 had been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5009/2012 on the ground of jurisdiction. The order dated 8.6.2012 was quashed by this Court by order dated 5.10.2012 observing that the Child Development Project Officer may pass fresh order on receiving recommendation from the Deputy Development Commissioner. Thereafter, the Child Development Project Officer has passed impugned order on the ground of dereliction of duty and other irregularities committed by the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a show cause notice dated 5.5.2012 was issued to the petitioner alleging that on 3.5.2012 at 8.30 A.M, on inspection by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, it was found that the children were absent. The petitioner had given reply to the same explaining the reason of absence, but deviating from the irregularities levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice, the respondents have passed impugned order on different grounds. It has been submitted that the authorities have taken grounds for cancellation of the petitioner's selection which are not the subject matter of the show cause notice. Even assuming that the petitioner was absent only for a day then also the impugned order is absolutely improper and contrary to Clause 16 of the guidelines of the Government, as contained in Letter No. 585 dated 2.6.2006 (Annexure-10), which suggests that the order of cancellation of selection of an Anganwari Sevika can be passed, if she remains absent continuously for a period of 15 days.;