Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 632 (ORI)

Pratima Manjari Mishra v. Sub-Collector, Baripada

2003-10-29

B.P.DAS

body2003
ORDER 29.10.2003. Heard Shri N. Lenka for the petitioner and learned Addl.Govt.Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.6.1995 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Rasagovindapur, O.P. No.2, vide Annexure-3, terminating her services as Anganwadi Worker of Khuntapal Anganwadi Centre in Mayurbhanj district. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in 1993 she was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the aforesaid centre and while continuing as such, her services have been terminated by the impugned order in Annexure-3 without affording her any oppor¬tunity of hearing. Annexure-3 also does not disclose any reason for terminating her services except saying that the order was passed as per the decision taken in the C.D.P.O.’s. village Committee meeting. Though Annexure-3 does not specifically state about the reason for termination of the services of the petitioner, yet the petitioner has been directed not to work in the said Centre until further orders of the C.D.P.O. According to the petitioner, this amounts to termination of her services. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the C.D.P.O. O.P. No.2 disclosing therein that the petitioner did not co-operate with the members of the Food Committee of the village and misbe¬haved the Food Committee members for which an F.I.R. was lodged at the Rasagovindapur P.S. and the O.I.C. of the P.S. submitted a report to the C.D.P.O. vide Annexure-A/2 with a suggestion for replacement of the petitioner from the centre for her misconduct/mismanagement. O.P. No.2 has further stated in the counter affidavit that she personally enquired into the matter and on examining the relevant papers found that there was misman¬agement of foodstuff by the petitioner and the petitioner did not co-operate in the smooth management of the centre. 5. In the entire counter affidavit although O.P. No.2 has justified her action in terminating the services of the petition¬er, nothing has been indicated regarding issuance of any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of termination of her services. Learned counsel for the State is also not able to indicate anything from the record that before passing the im¬pugned order any show cause notice was issued or the principles of natural justice were followed. 6. Law in this regard is well settled. Learned counsel for the State is also not able to indicate anything from the record that before passing the im¬pugned order any show cause notice was issued or the principles of natural justice were followed. 6. Law in this regard is well settled. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , it was held that in every executive action the natural justice is embedded even though that is not provided in the Rules. This is a case where admittedly no opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing the order in Annexure-3. Therefore, the order passed by O.P. No.2 in Annexure-3 terminating the services of the petitioner is not legal in the eye of law for which the same is liable to be quashed. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I have no hesitation to quash the order terminating the services of the petitioner in Annexure-3. The writ petition is accordingly allowed but without any order as to cost. Petition allowed.