ORDER Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to make correction in the cage column of the writ application. 2. Having heard counsel for the parties this Court would find that the District Programme Officer, Siwan has once again passed a similar routine mechanical order in a cyclostyle proforma for removal of Anganwari Sevika. There can be no difficulty in understanding the aspect that if a Anganwari Sevika is not working properly and if certain discrepancies are reported in her functioning, the District Programme Officer can pass an order for removal but the same cannot be by way of a routine order in a printed proforma with the only consideration reading as follows: “ lE;d fopkjksijkUr budk Li"Vhdj.k Lohdk;Z ugha ik;k x;kA ” 3. The District Programme Officer, Siwan must keep in mind that when in the show cause notice as in the present case there were six noticeable discrepancies found in course of alleged inspection by the officer of the Directorate of ICDS and the petitioner in her show cause reply had explained by way of her defence all of them, there had to be some consideration to such show cause reply. Obviously in the printed proforma there was no scope for such consideration because it was already printed therein that the explanation furnished by the concerned Anganwari Sevika was not worth acceptance. This cannot be the approach for compliance of the principles of natural justice to which at least the Anganwari Sevika even without being Government servant are entitled. 4. Such cryptic order of the District Programme Officer, Siwan had already been quashed by this Court by an order dated 19.02.2013 in C.W.J.C.No. 18922/2012 wherein this Court had held as follows:- "Assailing the impugned order of removal from the post of Anganwari Sevika dated 7.5.2012 and its affirmation in the appellate order dated 13.8.2012 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the original order passed by the District Programme Officer on 7.5.2012 did not contain any reason the same could not have been cured by a speaking order passed by the Collector of the District while disposing of the appeal. In this context he has drawn attention of this Court to the show cause notice which according to him on the face of record seems to be having contradictory allegations. In this context he has drawn attention of this Court to the show cause notice which according to him on the face of record seems to be having contradictory allegations. He has also explained that when these aspects were clearly spelt out in the explanation furnished by the petitioner before the District Programme Officer and the same was also received in his office on 24.4.2012, the same was not at all considered by the District Programme Officer who somehow passed an order in cyclostyle proforma rejecting the explanation in one line that the same was not worth acceptance. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this by itself has vitiated the impugned order. He has also in this regard referred to an order of this Court dated 18.1.2013 in the case of Indra Kumari v. the State of Bihar & ors., C.W.J.C. No. 1149 of 2013. From the reading of the show cause notice dated 24.4.2012 it would transpire that six specific allegations were noticed on the basis of inspection conducted by the Central team of the Director, ICDS. From the reading of the show cause notice dated 24.4.2012 it would transpire that six specific allegations were noticed on the basis of inspection conducted by the Central team of the Director, ICDS. The six allegations against the petitioner in the show cause notice were as follows: ^^1- vkWxuckM+h dsUnz [kqyk Fkk fdUrq vki ,oa vkidh lgkf;dk dsUnz ij ugha Fkh A 2- THR dk iSdsV ugha cukdj j[kk x;k Fkk A 3- THR forj.k iwjk fd;s fcuk vkWxuckM+h dsUnz can dj fn;k x;k FkkA 4- Ldwy iwoZ f’k{kk nsus ds ckotwn 15-3-12 dh mifLFkfr ugha cuk;h x;h FkhA 5- fujh{kh ink- }kjk p;u eqDr djus dh vuq’kalk dh x;h gSA 6- dsUnz dh fLFkfr vlarks”ktud gSA^^ The petitioner had submitted her explanation, as contained in Annexure 2, wherein apart from the other facts she had denied the allegations by taking the following plea: “(i) vk¡xuckM+h dsUnz [kqyk Fkk tSls vkids }kjk fy[kk Hkh x;k gS ysfdu yxHkx 4 cts rd 10 ykHkwd viuk T.H.R dh lkexzh pkoy ,oa nky ugha ys x;s FksA mudks nwckjk lwpuk nsus ds fy;s lgkf;dk muds ?kj x;h Fkh ,oa eSa ¼lsfodk½ 3 cts ls cps gq;s ykHkwd ugha vk;s Fks rFkk lgkf;dk cqykus x;h FkhA bl rjg ls yxkrkj dsUnz ij 9 cts ls 4 cts rd cSBs jgus ds dkj.k Hkw[k Hkh yx x;k Fkk blfy, Qzs'k ysus rFkk ukLrk djus ds fy, cxy ds ?kj esa pyh x;h FkhA (ii) T.H.R dk dqy ¼112½ iSdsV cukdj j[kk x;k Fkk ftlesa 46 ykHkwd ysdj pys x;s Fks ysfdu 10 ykHkwd cps gq;s Fks ftudk iSdsV ,d iykfLVd ds cksjs esa cxy ds dejk esa j[kk x;k Fkk ftlesa cPpksa dk iks’kkgkj curk gS ftldks fujh{kh inkf/kdkjh ns[k ugha ik;h Fkh A (iii) tSlk dh vkids }kjk iwNs x;s izFke iz’u esa fy[kk x;k gS dh dsUnz [kqyk Fkk A ysfdu cps gq;s 10 ykHkwdksa ds ckjs esa lwpuk feyh dh 3 ykHkwd cSad ls iSlk fudkyus ds fy;s cktkj x;s Fks rFkk 7 ykHkwd eujsxk ds rgr~ rkykc dh [kqnk;h esa yxs gq;s Fks tks 5 cts ds igys ugha vk;saxsA ;|fi ;g xk¡o fiNM+k nfyr ,oa egknfyr ckgwY; xk¡o gS ftlesa cgqr ykHkwd etnwj oxZ ls vkrs gSa tks dke djds ?kj ykSVrs gSa rks viuk T.H.R ys tkrs gSa tSlk dh ml fnu Hkh lka; 5 cts ls 6 cts ds chp cps gq;s ykHkwd ys x;s blfy, yxHkx 4 cts fujh{kh inkf/kdkjh ds vkus ds le; dsUnz ij fdlh ykHkwd ds ugha jgus ds dkj.k cxy ds ?kj esa ukLrk djus x;h Fkh A (iv) Ldwy iwoZ f'k{kk nsdj iks’kkgkj forj.k dj jgh Fkh rHkh lekftd vads{k.k ds fy;s vfHkHkkod vkus yxs rFkk T.H.R dh lkexzh ysus ds fy, tYnckth djus yxs ftlls Hkwyol esjs }kjk ml fnu dh cPpksa dh mifLFkfr fujh{kh inkf/kdkjh ds vkus rd ugha cuk ik;h Fkh A ” When the District Programme Officer had admittedly received the explanation, his response in the impugned order was only to the extent that “ lE;d fopkjksijkUr budk Li"Vhdj.k Lohdk;Z ugha ik;k x;kA ” This also being part of the impugned order was in fact already printed in cyclostyle proforma which would be reflective of the fact that the District Programme Officer does not have even time to deal with the specific defence even though the allegations in all the cases may be different. The manner in which the impugned order has been passed by the District Programme Officer would really raise a question as to whether the person deserves to be continued in Government service much less on a responsible post of District Programme Officer, Siwan. The District Programme Officer, who is ultimate In-charge of all the Schemes undertaken by the Directorate of ICDS cannot be allowed to behave in such a mechanical manner. Such approach of the authorities not only leads to unnecessary litigation but in fact also tells upon morale of working force. It becomes too clear from reading of the impugned order contained in a prescribed proforma that the District Programme Officer was overawed by the report of an officer of Directorate of ICDS and has literally under the dictation issued by the Director, ICDS. This Court has also, however, gone into the appellate order passed by the Collector of the District and would not like to make any comment about the same because under the Government resolution there is no provision for an appeal against an order of removal passed by the District Programme Officer based on the inspection of the authorities of Directorate of ICDS. As a matter of fact the Collector of the District also has made only paraphasing of the same issue and has not been able to resolve the controversy as to whether Anganwari centre was closed or opened because the allegation no.1 would go to show that Anganwari centre was opened whereas allegation no.3 would go to show that Anganwari centre was already closed. These aspects in fact could have been better resolved had the District Programme Officer either supplied the full inspection report to the petitioner or secured the presence of the person who had made such report on the basis of which the action was taken against the petitioner. That having been not done and the District Programme Officer had only passed a routine mechanical order in a prescribed proforma for removal of the petitioner, this Court will have no option but to quash the impugned order dated 7.5.2012, as contained in Annexure 3 as also the appellate order of the Collector and remit the matter back to District Programme Officer, Siwan for deciding the matter afresh after considering the show cause reply already filed by the petitioner, as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application. This exercise, however, must be completed by the District Programme Officer, Siwan within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order." Thus, for similar reasons the impugned order passed by the District Programme Officer, Siwan in this case, as contained in Annexure 3, dated 7.5.2012 is also held to be bad. 5. Suffice it to say that the appellate order passed by the Collector of Siwan District is without jurisdiction because as a matter of fact there is no appeal against such order of removal passed by the District Programme Officer which is based on the inspection of Central team of the Directorate of ICDS. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Collector also cannot improve the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Siwan. 6. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above this writ application is allowed and both the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures 3 and 4, are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Programme Officer, Siwan to proceed afresh from the stage of consideration of the show cause reply of the petitioner. 7. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.