- (1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 3.9.2009 (Annexure-5), passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih terminating the service of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika, has approached this Court. The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed as Anganwari Sevika vide order dated 9.3.2005. There was specific condition in her appointment letter that her service can be cancelled by giving 15 days prior notice. However, without complying with the said condition, the service of the petitioner had been taken away vide order dated 3.9.2009 by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih, whereas, under Clause 16 of the Government Rule, the power for removing an Anganwari Sevika has been vested with the Child Development Project Officer with prior approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has been made the appellate authority. It has been submitted that the Deputy Development Commissioner has got no power to remove an Anganwari Sevika, as such the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been removed from service on the allegations of serious irregularities, as have been mentioned in the impugned order. The allegations have been made that the said Anganwari Centre always remains closed, the petitioner is not sincere in discharging her duty as an Anganwari Sevika. However, he has not disputed the fact that the Child Development Project Officer has got jurisdiction to pass the order of removal of an Anganwari Sevika.
(3.) Heard the parties, perused the record.;