JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. A K Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J K Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 30.04.2013, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Bajali, removing the petitioner from her honorary services as Anganwadi Worker of 201 No. Batua (Palhajipara) Anganwadi Center. 3. The petitioner, herein, in terms of her selection, was vide communication dated 27.09.2007, offered engagement on honorary basis as an Anganwadi Worker against 201 No. Batua (Palhajipara) Anganwadi Center. The petitioner accepted the said offer made to her and joined her services. While the petitioner was continuing in her services, she was injured in an assault made on her by her husband, Ramil Ali on 25.07.2012. The petitioner, accordingly, lodged an FIR before Sarupeta Police Station, against her husband and other accused persons, basing on the said incident occasioning on 25.07.2012. It is projected that on account of the injuries sustained by her in the said assault, she was not in a position to attend her duties. It is also projected that the petitioner had submitted due applications before the authorities for grant of necessary leave. While the petitioner was on leave, on 19.09.2012, her husband Ramil Ali, was killed by some unknown miscreants and accordingly, Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1829/2012, came to be registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and the petitioner was made an accused in the said case. The petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2012 in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1829/2012. Subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on bail, vide an order dated 05.12.2012, passed by the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bajali. It is projected that the petitioner, after being enlarged on bail, had on 18.12.2012, reported for her duties, however, she was not permitted to resume her duties by the respondent authorities on the plea that the petitioner was found to be involved in a criminal case. It is in the above background that the petitioner was held by the respondent authorities to be unauthorizedly absent from her duties and accordingly, vide order dated 30.04.2013, the petitioner was removed from her engagement as an Anganwadi Worker in 201 No. Batua (Palhajipara) Anganwadi Center. The said order is projected by the petitioner to have been received by her on 27.07.2013. The said order is projected by the petitioner to have been received by her on 27.07.2013. The petitioner projects to have submitted representations for permitting her to resume her services, which was not considered. Thereafter, the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner, having resulted in her acquittal, the petitioner projects that she had again approached the respondent authorities for permitting her to resume her duties, however, the said prayer not being considered, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts, noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner for reasons beyond her control, was required to remain out of services on account of the injuries sustained by her, on being assaulted by her husband on 25.07.2012. He submits that after the murder of her husband, the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities by way of an application dated 26.09.2012, praying for extension of her earlier leave for further 1 (one) month, i.e., w.e.f. 01.10.2012 on medical ground, so as to enable her to observe religious ceremonies and to undergo treatment for the injuries suffered by her. 4.1 Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities, without considering the grievances raised by the petitioner in the matter, had proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 30.04.2013, removing the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Worker of the said Anganwadi Center, on the ground that she was unauthorisedly absent, w.e.f. 19.09.2012. He submits that the petitioner, having been removed from her engagement as a Anganwadi Worker, on the ground of being unauthorisedly absent from her services, such removal was permissible only after holding of an enquiry in the matter, by following the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. Accordingly, he submits that no enquiry having been held in the matter, the impugned order dated 30.04.2013, would mandate an interference from this Court. 4.2 Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had initially approached the respondent authorities on 18.12.2012, for resumption of her duties as Anganwadi Worker, but she was prevented from resuming her service, on the ground that at the relevant point of time, there was a criminal proceeding pending against her. 4.3 Mr. 4.2 Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had initially approached the respondent authorities on 18.12.2012, for resumption of her duties as Anganwadi Worker, but she was prevented from resuming her service, on the ground that at the relevant point of time, there was a criminal proceeding pending against her. 4.3 Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the said criminal proceeding had ended in acquittal of the petitioner, vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2015, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bajali, in Sessions Case No. 81/2014. Accordingly, he submits that the ground on which, the petitioner was prevented from resuming her services, no longer existing, this Court would require the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to resume her duties as Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Center. 5. Per contra, Mr. J K Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, submits that the engagement of the petitioner was on honorary basis and she having remained absent without intimation to the respondent authorities, her such absence having affected the functioning of the Anganwadi Center in question, the respondent authorities were left with no other alternative, but to remove the petitioner and engage another person as Anganwadi Worker for the said Anganwadi Center in question. He submits that after the removal of the petitioner, by following the due procedure mandated, an Anganwadi Worker was selected and engaged at 201 No. Batua (Palhajipara) Anganwadi Center. Accordingly, he submits that the post of Anganwadi Worker earlier held by the petitioner is not vacant, as on date. Mr. Goswami, further submits that the person, who is now engaged as Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Center, has also not been made a party respondent in the present writ petition. 5.1 Mr. Goswami, submits that the petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate the nature of the injuries sustained by her, as well as that she was incapacitated from continuing with her services on account of the injuries suffered by her. He has further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that after being released on bail in the criminal proceedings instituted against her, had approached the respondent authorities, praying for permitting her to resume her services, has been made without there being any material brought on record to justify the same. Mr. He has further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that after being released on bail in the criminal proceedings instituted against her, had approached the respondent authorities, praying for permitting her to resume her services, has been made without there being any material brought on record to justify the same. Mr. Goswami, submits that in the representation dated 26.09.2012, preferred by the petitioner, there is no indication to the effect that the petitioner on proceeding to resume her services, was restrained by the respondent authorities only on account of the pendency of a criminal case against her. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner, having willfully remained away from her duties, the impugned order dated 30.04.2013, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 5.2 Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, with regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the removal of the petitioner ought to have been preceded by an enquiry, by complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, submits that the petitioner’s engagement is on voluntary basis and she cannot be held to be a holder of a civil post. Accordingly, the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, would have no application, insofar as, the services rendered by the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami, submits that no enquiry under the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, was mandated to be so held in the matter, prior to removal of the petitioner from her services. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The challenge in the present proceeding is to an order dated 30.04.2013, issued by the jurisdictional Child Development Project Officer. A perusal of the said order dated 30.04.2013, would reveal that the petitioner was found to be unauthorisedly absent, w.e.f. 19.09.2012, till the date of issuance of the said communication and accordingly, basing on the instructions of the jurisdictional Divisional Project Officer, the petitioner was removed from her engagement as Anganwadi Worker in 201 No. Batua (Palhajipara) Anganwadi Center. 8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had remained absent, w.e.f. 25.07.2012. The reason for such absence was projected in the writ petition by the petitioner to be on account of the injuries sustained by her, on being assaulted by her husband. 8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had remained absent, w.e.f. 25.07.2012. The reason for such absence was projected in the writ petition by the petitioner to be on account of the injuries sustained by her, on being assaulted by her husband. However, no material has been brought on record to demonstrate the nature of the injuries sustained by her. 9. It was projected that she had also filed an FIR in this connection before the jurisdictional Police Station. The petitioner in the writ petition has projected that she had submitted an application before the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Child Development Project Officer, Bajali, praying for extension of leave on medical ground for further 15 (fifteen) days, w.e.f. 26.07.2012. The said application submitted by the petitioner, has also not been brought on record. 10. It is further projected in the writ petition that no leave was granted to the petitioner, basing on the said application. The petitioner, accordingly, continued to remain on leave without prior approval of the concerned authorities, till 19.09.2012. On 19.09.2012, the petitioner’s husband was murdered by some unknown miscreants and in this connection, Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1829/2012, was registered and the petitioner was also implicated as an accused person, therein. The petitioner was, accordingly, placed under arrest in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1829/2012 and remained under detention till 05.12.2012, when she was enlarged on bail by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bajali. 11. The petitioner has further projected that, on being enlarged on bail, she had reported for her duties before the respondent No. 4, on 18.12.2012. However, it is projected that the petitioner was not permitted to resume her services by the respondent No. 4, in view of the pendency of a criminal proceeding against her. The said aspect of the matter is not found to have been projected in a representation made subsequently by the petitioner on 29.07.2013. There is no disclosure in the said representation that the petitioner, although, was eager to resume her services and had approached the respondent No. 4 for the purpose on 18.12.2012, but she was restrained from resuming her services on account of pendency of a criminal case against her. Accordingly, the said contention of the petitioner not being found to have been established from the materials coming on record, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 12. Accordingly, the said contention of the petitioner not being found to have been established from the materials coming on record, would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 12. In view of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner continuing, the works of the Anganwadi Center, having been found to be suffering and the beneficiaries being affected, the respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 30.04.2013, proceeded to remove the petitioner from her engagement as an Anganwadi Worker in the Anganwadi Center in question, on account of her unauthorised absence, w.e.f. 19.09.2012. 13. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that she had in fact approached the respondent authorities, praying for extension of leave. The only application found to be submitted prior to her removal from her engagement as an Anganwadi Worker, is an application dated 26.09.2012. While the petitioner, therein, had highlighted that she had suffered injuries, on being assaulted by her husband and also the fact that subsequently, her husband was murdered by some unknown miscreants and she was in bereavement, she had sought for extension of her period of leave for further 1 (one) month. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, was under detention in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against her and she was released on bail only on 05.12.2012. 14. However, it is not brought on record that after 05.12.2012, the petitioner had approached the respondent No. 4, and/or any other respondent, seeking permission to resume her services. Although, in the writ petition, such approach was said to have been made on 18.12.2012, as noticed, hereinabove, the same was not established from the representation, subsequently, made by the petitioner on 29.07.2013. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, not having demonstrated that she had approached the respondent authorities, after 05.12.2012, seeking reinstatement in her services and on being refused, to have approached the higher authorities in this connection, this Court would proceed to hold, basing on the materials coming on record in the present proceeding, that the petitioner had deliberately and willfully remained absent from her services. Accordingly, the removal of the petitioner from her engagement as Anganwadi Worker of the Anganwadi Center in question, in the considered view of this Court, is not erroneous. 16. Accordingly, the removal of the petitioner from her engagement as Anganwadi Worker of the Anganwadi Center in question, in the considered view of this Court, is not erroneous. 16. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now examine the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the removal of the petitioner not being so done in compliance with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as well as the procedure, set out, in this connection, in the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, such removal would mandate an interference from this Court. 17. The said submissions is noticed only to be rejected, inasmuch as, the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, would have no application, insofar as, the services of the petitioner is concerned, inasmuch as, her service is on voluntary basis and she is not a Government servant and is also not found to be a holder of a civil post. Accordingly, the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands rejected. 18. This Court further finds that after the removal of the petitioner, the respondent authorities had engaged another person as an Anganwadi Worker against the Anganwadi Center in question and accordingly, there is no vacant post of Anganwadi Worker, available in the said Anganwadi Center, as on date. The person now engaged as an Anganwadi Worker, having not been arrayed as a respondent, in her absence, this Court would also not pass any order adverse to the interest of such appointee, who is now manning the works of a Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Center. 19. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.