ORDER : 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing. 2. The petitioner calls in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 28-10-2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 – Additional Collector, Durg, whereby order dated 17-8-2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.5 – Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara, District Durg, terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta, has been affirmed by the learned Additional Collector. 3. The petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Aanganwadi Karyakarta in Aanganwadi Centre No.42 in selection process on 21-5-2007 which she joined on 8-6-2007. Thereafter, she was served with notice dated 17-2-2010 which she replied, but ultimately her services were terminated on 17-8-2010 by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara which she questioned by filing appeal in terms of circular dated 2-4-2008 before the Additional Collector, Durg, but by impugned order dated 28-10-2011 (Annexure P-1), the learned Additional Collector dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the CMO, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the procedure prescribed in circular dated 2-4-2008 terminating the services of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has not been followed and that has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore the order of the CMO, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara and that of the Additional Collector deserve to be set aside the petitioner be reinstated on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta. 4. Return has been filed by the State / respondents No.1 to 4 supporting the orders impugned passed by the CMO and the Additional Collector. 5. No return has been filed by respondent No.5 as well as by respondent No.6. 6. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that in order to remove the petitioner who was a duly selected Aanganwadi Karyakarta, the procedure prescribed in circular dated 2-4-2008 (clause 13) was imperative and by merely giving show cause notice, her services could not have been terminated. As such, the order of the CMO is absolutely bad in law, but in appeal preferred in accordance with clause 11 of the said circular, the Additional Collector also did not look into the same and dismissed the appeal which is ex facie illegal and bad in law and therefore the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated along with backwages. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned State counsel, would support the impugned orders which in turn was adopted by Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.5 also. 8. None present for respondent No.6, though served. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. Admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioner was duly selected as Aanganwadi Karyakarta, she was removed from service by order dated 17-8-2010 by respondent No.5 and appeal against the order of removal has been dismissed by the Additional Collector. The procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has been prescribed by the State Government by circular dated 2-4-2008. 10. Admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioner was duly selected as Aanganwadi Karyakarta, she was removed from service by order dated 17-8-2010 by respondent No.5 and appeal against the order of removal has been dismissed by the Additional Collector. The procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has been prescribed by the State Government by circular dated 2-4-2008. Clause 13 of circular dated 2-4-2008 prescribes the procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta which states as under :- 13 dk;ZdrkZvksa@lgkf;dkvksa dks in ls gVkus dh izfØ;k%& 13-1 fdlh vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds lanHkZ esa f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ij cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk lacaf/kr Ik;Zos{kd ls tkap djokdj izfrosnu izkIr fd;k tk;sxk o izkIr izfrosnu esa xq.k nks"kksa dk ijh{k.k dj f'kdk;r lgh ik;s tkus ij ;fn fdlh izdkj dk xcu vFkok xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dk izdj.k curk gS rks lacaf/kr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks ml ij ifjyf{kr gq, vkjksiksa ls Li"V voxr djkrs gq, viuk i{k j[kus dk volj iznku fd;s tkus gsrq iUnzg fnol dk le; iznku fd;k tkosxk ,oa mRrj izkIr gksus ij iqu% xq.k nks"kksa dk ijh{k.k dj U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; ysrs gq, ;fn in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vko';d gks rks in ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus laca/kh izLrko tk¡p izfrosnu lfgr tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; dh ml lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tkosxk tks p;u ds fy;s l{ke gSA mDr lfefr ds vuqeksnu gksus ds mijkar eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r@vk;qDr uxj fuxe@eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh }kjk in ls i`Fkd djus ds vkns'k izlkfjr fd;s tkosaxsA 13-2 ;fn xcu vFkok xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dk izdj.k ifjyf{kr ugha gqvk gS ,oa ek= lkekU; ykijokfg;k¡ ifjyf{kr gqbZ gSa rks lacaf/kr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk izFke nks ckj lacaf/kr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks lpsr djrs gq, psrkouh tkjh dh tkosxh ,oa r`rh; ckj Hkh lq/kkj u vkus ij ml ij Li"V vkjksi vkjksfir djrs gq, lquokbZ dk vafre volj iznku fd;k tkosxk ,oa izkIr Li"Vhdj.k ij U;k;ksfpr :i ls fopkj djrs gq, ;fn in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vko';d gks rks rn~uqlkj mijksDr df.Mdk 13-1 vuqlkj tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; dks izLrko izLrqr dj lsok lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA ;fn xaHkhj dnkpkj@vfu;ferrk dh f'kdk;r gksus ij Hkh tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; dh p;u lfefr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls izFkd djus laca/kh izLrko izLrqr djus ds rhu lIrkg dh le;kof/k ds Hkhrj ikfjr ugha djrh gS ,oa ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh mDr dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks tufgr esa in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vko';d ekurs gSa rks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh izdj.k ewY;kadu lfefr ds le{k j[ksaxsA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ds }kjk ewY;kadu lfefr ds izLrko ls ftyk dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu mijkar in ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxkA 13-3 ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa vFkkZr ftyk dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh vFkok muls mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fujh{k.k ds nkSjku fLFkfr vlarks"ktud ik;s tkus ij ;fn muds foosd vuqlkj dk;ZdrkZ dks in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk vko';d ik;k tkrk gS rks bl gsrq lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh vius fujh{k.k rFkk vfu;ferrkvksa dk foLr`r lqLi"V izfrosnu rS;kj dj in ls i`Fkd djus gsrq mYys[k djrs gq, eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r vkSj ;fn uxjh; {ks= gS rks vk;qDr uxj fuxe@eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh dks izsf"kr dj nsaxs ,oa tuin iapk;r ,oa uxjh; fudk; }kjk df.Mdk 13-1 ,oa 13-2 vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA 13-4 in ls i`FkDdj.k ds vkns'k ds fo:) vihy dafMdk 11 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dh tk ldsxhA 13-5 ;fn dksbZ vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds yxkrkj ,d ekg ls vf/kd vof/k rd vuqifLFkr jgrh gS rks ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k ij Ik;Zos{kd ls ,d tkap izfrosnu izkIr dj dafMdk 13-1] 13-2 ds vuq:i lsok lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh djsaxsA 13-6 vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh lsok dh vf/kdre mez 62 o"kZ iw.kZ gksus ij ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh mUgsa ,d ekg iwoZ fyf[kr lwpuk nsdj lsok lekIr djus laca/kh vkns'k izlkfjr djsaxsA bl gsrq dafMdk 13-1] 13-2 ds vuq:i tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; dh p;u lfefr ls vuqeksnu ysus dh vko';drk ugha gksxhA Li"Vhdj.k%& mijksDrkuqlkj in ls i`Fkd djus dh izfØ;k esa ftl vH;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr ftl izfØ;k ls gqbZ gksxh mlh izfØ;k ls mlh izfØ;k ds rgr fofgr lfefr o vuqeksnu ds vuqlkj mls in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkosxk vFkkZr ;fn tuin iapk;r@uxjh; fudk; ls p;u gqvk gS rks mlh fudk; ds ek/;e ls dafMdk 13-1 vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djrs gq, in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkosxk ,oa ftl vH;FkhZ dk p;u ewY;kadu lfefr rFkk ftyk dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu ls gqvk gksxk mls rn~uqlkj gh ewY;kadu lfefr o ftyk dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu ls in ls i`Fkd fd;k tkosxkA 11. A careful perusal of the aforesaid clause would show that detailed procedure has been prescribed for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta which includes enquiry by supervisor at the instance of the Project Officer and in case of embezzlement or gross irregularity, charges have to be served to the delinquent Aanganwadi Karyakarta giving 15 days time to submit reply and after receipt of reply, it should be placed before the Committee of Janpad Panchayat/Municipal Council which is competent to recruit and thereafter, order has to be passed by the CMO, Janpad Panchayat/Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. Likewise, as per clause 13.2 of the said circular, if it is not the case of embezzlement or gross irregularity, then warning has to be given. 12. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid requirement of conducting enquiry, it appears that vide Annexure P-6, the petitioner was only given notice dated 17-2-2010 directing her to appear in the office which she replied on 22-2-2010 and asked for permission to join and in the meanwhile, departmental report was also submitted against the petitioner which is available at page 16 & 17 of the writ petition, but it appears that thereafter, no procedure has been followed as indicated in clause 13.1 of circular dated 2-4-2008 by serving copy of charges along with materials giving 15 days notice to reply and it also appears that on 13-8-2010, the Project Officer referred the matter to the Municipal Council on the basis of resolution in the meeting of President-in-Council dated 13-8-2010 and accordingly, order dated 17-8-2010 was passed. As such, the procedure prescribed in clause 13.1 of circular dated 2-4-2008 has not been followed while terminating the services of the petitioner which has caused serious prejudice to her. As such, the procedure prescribed in clause 13.1 of circular dated 2-4-2008 has not been followed while terminating the services of the petitioner which has caused serious prejudice to her. It appears that even no show cause notice for termination along with material which has been collected departmentally by the Project Officer has been served to the petitioner and no minimum opportunity to her to defend herself has been afforded and she has been terminated, which she questioned in terms of clause 11 of the said circular, but the learned Additional Collector misdirected himself by not considering her case in right perspective and without considering the requirement of holding enquiry and giving opportunity in terminating the services of the petitioner, who was a duly selected and appointed Aanganwadi Karyakarta, in terms of clause 13.1 of circular dated 2-4-2008, the impugned order has been passed affirming the order of the CMO, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara removing the petitioner from the said post. The impugned orders are ex facie illegal and in teeth of clause 13 of circular dated 2-4-2008 and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 17-8-2010 removing the petitioner from the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta and the order dated 28-10-2011 affirming the said order of removal of the petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement. In order to claim back-wages, the petitioner is at liberty to move the appointing authority within six weeks from today which will be considered by the appointing authority in accordance with law. However, the official respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, but this should not be considered as a mandate to initiate disciplinary proceeding unless it is expedient in the interest of justice to be decided by the competent authority. 14. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).