Cancellation of Anganbari personnel without providing a second opportunity for hearing by the District Magistrate violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganbari Sahayika in 2018 at Jaishree Anganbari Centre, Rohtas

Following an inspection alleging discrepancies, the District Programme Officer (DPO) issued a show-cause notice on 17.05.2022

The petitioner replied via email on 18.05.2022

However, the District Magistrate (DM) cancelled her appointment via order dated 30.05.2022 without discussing her explanation

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna, subsequently rejected her appeal (Appeal Case No. 294/2022) on 11.02.2025, affirming the DM's order

The petitioner challenged both orders via this writ petition, alleging procedural violations of the 2006 Guidelines

1. Whether the orders of removal passed by the District Magistrate and the Appellate Authority were legally sustainable in light of the procedural requirements under Rules 9 and 10 of the 2006 Guidelines

2. Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of being heard/second show-cause before the final decision of removal was taken by the District Magistrate

Rules 9 and 10 of the Guidelines for Appointment of Anganwari Sewika/Sahayika, 2006, which mandate that a disciplinary proceeding must involve an initial show-cause by the inspecting authority followed by a recommendation to the District Magistrate.

Rule 10 specifically requires the District Magistrate to grant the concerned worker an opportunity to present their case and pass a "Speaking Order" before removal.

Letter No. ICDS/80050/13-2014/2447 dated 06/06/2018, which outlines a gradation of punishments, emphasizing that removal should be a last recourse.

The court found that the DPO failed to place the petitioner’s timely electronic explanation dated 18.05.2022 before the District Magistrate for consideration.

Crucially, the court observed that Rule 10 of the 2006 Guidelines creates a two-tier opportunity for the delinquent: first before the inspecting officer/DPO, and second before the District Magistrate as the deciding authority.

The record indicated that the District Magistrate proceeded to cancel the appointment based solely on the DPO’s recommendation without issuing a second notice or granting the petitioner an independent hearing.

This omission constituted a gross violation of the mandatory procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice enshrined in the Guidelines.

The High Court quashed the Divisional Commissioner’s order dated 11.02.2025 and the District Magistrate’s order dated 30.05.2022. The petition was allowed with a direction to the DPO to reconsider the petitioner's explanation under Rule 9 and to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh decision under Rule 10 after providing a proper opportunity for a hearing and considering the 2018 ICDS guidelines, within a four-month period.