ORDER : Rajnish Kumar, J. 1. Heard Shri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Avadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the opposite party no.4 and the order dated 29.02.2008 passed by the opposite party no.5. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the opposite parties to pay honourarium to the petitioner from November, 2007 till date. 3. The brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present controversy are that the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri of Village-Padampur, Post-Parsadepur, Block-Chatoh, District-Raibareli after due selection on 25.11.2000. In pursuance thereof the petitioner joined on the said post. A complaint was moved by one Shri Shrawan Kumar Yadav on 08.02.2007, on which an inquiry was ordered by the opposite party no.2. In compliance thereof an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Salon, District-Raibareli and he submitted the report on 22.10.2007 holding that the complaint has been made due to malice. 4. It appears that Shri Shrawan Kumar Yadav had moved several complaints on the same set of facts. An explanation was called from the petitioner by means of letter dated 11.04.2007 and 23.07.2007. In response thereof the petitioner had submitted her reply by means of letter dated 20.08.2007 annexing therewith all the documents i.e educational certificate, domicile certificate, election/voter identity card, issued by the Election Commission, affidavit, family register and the certificate issued by the village Pradhan. Thereafter without considering the reply and conducting any oral inquiry a report was submitted. In pursuance thereof a show cause notice dated 27.11.2007 was issued to the petitioner. In the meantime the letter dated 28.11.2007 was written by the opposite party no.5 to the opposite party no.4 mentioning therein that the complaint appears to be forged and baseless. The petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice dated 27.11.2007 by means of the letter dated 05.12.2007 annexing the relevant documents and affidavits. In the meantime a report dated 20.02.2008 was submitted by the opposite party no.4, on which without calling any explanation from the petitioner and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner earlier against the show cause notice dated 27.11.2007, the order dated 29.02.2008 was passed for recovery of Rs.79592/-from the petitioner. In the meantime a report dated 20.02.2008 was submitted by the opposite party no.4, on which without calling any explanation from the petitioner and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner earlier against the show cause notice dated 27.11.2007, the order dated 29.02.2008 was passed for recovery of Rs.79592/-from the petitioner. The petitioner was further directed to deposit the same through account payee bank draft in the name of the opposite party no.4. Therefore the petitioner has approached to this Court challenging the order dated 29.02.2008 and the order dated 20.02.2008 after summoning the same. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was duly appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri in pursuance of the selection made by the respondents. The wife of the complainant Shri Shrawan Kumar Yadav had also applied for the said post but she could not be selected while the petitioner was selected by means of the order dated 25.11.2000. Subsequently, the wife of the complainant again applied in the year 2002 but she could not be selected again. There is a tussle with regard to the post of village Pradhan between the father-in-law of the complainant and brother of the petitioner in which brother of the petitioner was elected and supporter of the father-in-law of the complainant was defeated in the village of the parental house of the petitioner i.e Village-Madhukarpur, Post-Parsadepur, Block-Chatoh, District Raibareli. Therefore the complainant was annoyed and was on an inimical terms with the petitioner therefore the complainant had made forged complaints. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the complaint of the complainant an inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Salon, Raibareli and the same was found to have been made with malice. The notice was issued to the petitioner calling his explanation which was submitted by the petitioner alongwith all relevant documents but without considering the same the impugned order of recovery dated 29.02.2008 has been passed against the petitioner on a letter dated 20.02.2008 written by the opposite party no.4 without supplying a copy of the report and the complaints to the petitioner and holding any oral inquiry or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Therefore the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was made on a misconceived and concocted ground because the father of the petitioner Shri Ram Sundar S/o Shri Ram Avtar who is resident of Village-Madhukarpur, Post-Parsadepur, Block-Deeh, District Raibareli, has two sons namely Shri Vikranth Prasad @ Mahanth and Shri Arvind Kumar @ Guru Prasad and two daughters including the petitioner i.e Chandra Kali and another namely Smt. Savitri. The petitioner is married with Shri Gur Deen S/o-Shri Bindha Deen resident of Village-Padumpur, Post-Parsadepur, Block-Chatoh, District-Raibareli and sister of the petitioner Smt. Savitri Devi is married with Ram Baran S/o Datadeen resident of Village-Rahua, Lalganj, District-Pratapgarh. The father of the petitioner had also given his affidavit to this effect and village Pradhan of Madhukarpur and three members of Chetra Panchayat and several other persons have also given certificate which was filed by the petitioner but the same have not been considered while passing the impugned order and the impugned order has been passed on misconceived and unfounded ground. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order dated 29.02.2008 has rightly been passed by the opposite party no.5 which is perfectly just and proper in view of report/order of the District Programme Officer, Raibareli i.e opposite party no.4 dated 20.02.2008. As a matter of fact the petitioner's name is Savitri Devi and she while committing forgery and by impersonation worked as Anganwadi Worker in place of her sister Chandrakali and in these circumstances the honourarium paid to her w.e.f January, 2001 to October, 2007 has rightly been directed to be recovered from her. He further submitted that the petitioner who has committed forgery is not entitled for any relief from this Court. However, he fairly accepted that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order in pursuance of the letter / report dated 20.02.2008 of the opposite party no.4. 9. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The petitioner was appointed after due selection on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, Village-Padampur, Post-Parsadepur, Block-Chatoh, District-Raibareli. It appears that on account of some malice the complaints were made against the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The petitioner was appointed after due selection on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, Village-Padampur, Post-Parsadepur, Block-Chatoh, District-Raibareli. It appears that on account of some malice the complaints were made against the petitioner. One of such complaint was inquired and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Salon, Raibareli has submitted his report dated 22.10.2007 holding that the complaint has been made with malice. 11. In the meantime, an explanation was called from the petitioner by the opposite party no.5 by means of letter dated 11.04.2007 and the petitioner had submitted detailed reply alongwith the documents, on which, it appears that an inquiry was conducted and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2007 calling her explanation. In the meantime another complaint was made. The petitioner had submitted her explanation alongwith the documents and affidavits by means of letter dated 05.12.2007, but no decision was taken thereon. In the meantime the report dated 20.08.2007 was submitted by the opposite party no.4 and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner on the same and holding any inquiry, the order of recovery dated 29.02.2008 was passed by the opposite party no.5 in violation of principles of natural justice. 12. It is settled principle of law that once the complaint was made and explanation was called from the petitioner any decision could have been taken only after considering the explanation of the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the recommendation was made by the letter dated 20.02.2008 for removal of the petitioner from service but no decision has been taken from the competent authority as nothing has been brought on record. The order of recovery has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner on the report dated 20.02.2008 and also without considering the explanation and documents submitted by the petitioner on 05.12.2007. Therefore the impugned order dated 29.02.2008 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 13. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29.02.2008 is quashed. 14. Liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law.