Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41880 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7973 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Sangeeta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Child Development And Nutrition, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 20.06.2025 whereby petitioner's selection on the post of Anganbadi Worker in the Village concerned has been cancelled on account of a complaint having been made by one Smt. Ruchika Mishra. 3. It has been submitted that ex-facie, the impugned order has been passed considering only the complaint which was made against petitioner and a report which was called in pursuance thereof. It is submitted that absolutely no opportunity of hearing has been provided to petitioner nor has any such aspect been considered. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions in the matter and submits that prior to passing of impugned order, a show cause notice had been issued to petitioner to which reply was also submitted by petitioner on 29.05.2025. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that prior to passing of impugned order, a show cause notice appears to have been issued to petitioner to which she also submitted her reply dated 29.05.2025. However, a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that there is absolutely no consideration of grounds taken by petitioner in her reply. The impugned order in fact does not advert to the reply at all. 6. It is settled law that fairness in procedure entails not only opportunity of hearing but also consideration of reply submitted by an employee. The aspect of providing opportunity of hearing cannot be an empty formality as is evident in the present case. It is thus evident that once reply had been submitted by petitioner, it was incumbent upon the officer concerned to have considered the same and such a procedure not having been followed, renders the impugned order vitiated. 7. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 20.06.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh on the complaint but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering her reply. The aspect of payment of honourarium to petitioner for the time period she has worked, shall also be considered by the appropriate authority in the same order. 8. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench