Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 263 (MP)

Savita Mishra v. Bal Vikas Pariyozana Adhikari

2004-03-16

DIPAK MISRA

body2004
JUDGMENT Though the matter was listed for orders on application for urgent hearing, it is taken up final disposal. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Angan Badi Karyakarta in the year 1982 in the district of Rewa. While functioning in the said post, certain allegations were made that the petitioner was not attending to her duties and the centre was found closed as she was not residing there. A show cause notice was issued to her and she filed her explanation. Thereafter, the competent authority vide Annexure P-15C dated 21.4.1998 terminated the services of the petitioner. It is urged in the petition that the order of termination is vitiated inasmuch as there was no enquiry before passing of the order, which reflects stigma on the petitioner. A return has been filed supporting the order passed by the respondents. I have heard Mr. Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State. It is submitted by Mr. Lalwani that when petitioner has rendered more than 16 years of unblemished service, she cannot be thrown on the streets without holding an enquiry and solely on the basis of allegations. It is also contended by him that on a perusal of order Annexure A-15-C, it would be clear as day that the order of termination has been passed without holding any enquiry into the charges alleged and without affording proper opportunity of hearing to her. Mr. Ti wari, learned counsel for State per contra submitted that a show cause was duly issued to the petitioner and when proper opportunity was given, there cannot be any kind of cavil over the factum that there was no enquiry. The learned counsel further submitted the order of termination simpliciter'in the case at hand appears to have been passed with ulterior motive and hence, cannot withstand scrutiny. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, I have perused the show-cause notice as well as order of termination contained in Annex. 15-C. The show cause relates to the conduct with regard to various aspects. Thereafter certain material collected behind the back of the petitioner and that clearly reveals that the petitioner was responsible for distribution of food amongst local people and there had been no proper submission of report by the petitioner and that apart she was residing ten kilometers away with her husband. Thereafter certain material collected behind the back of the petitioner and that clearly reveals that the petitioner was responsible for distribution of food amongst local people and there had been no proper submission of report by the petitioner and that apart she was residing ten kilometers away with her husband. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the order of termination is only on the base of motive. I have no hesitation in holding that the order is passed on sound foundation. It is evident that no enquiry was conducted before issuing order of termination Annexure 15-C. Therefore, the order cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same stands quashed. The petitioner should be taken back in service within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. However, she would not be entitled to back wages. Needless to emphasise, if the respondents find any gross irregularity committed by her, it would be open to them to proceed against her in accordance with the rules. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.