Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2491 (RAJ)

Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2005-09-16

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The petitioner had filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the impugned termination order dated 29.03.2001 (Annexure P.1) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner may be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 15.07.1988 on the monthly honorarium of Rs. 225/-per month. .3. Vide Order dated 29.03.2001 the services of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of complaint, without any enquiry or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. .4. In this writ petition the order dated 29.03.2001 has been challenged. 5. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker since 1988 satisfactorily. However, merely on the basis of complaint, without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner have been terminated which is against the principle of natural justice and is also violative of mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 6. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, in which it has been stated that complaints were received against the petitioner. A complaint was received on dated 012.2000, in which it has been stated that the petitioner is not distributing the nutrition articles and also misutilized the articles by taking them to her house. 7. On this complaint a notice dated 012.2000 was given to the petitioner calling her explanation but the petitioner did not submit any reply to the said notice. Thereafter, another complaint was received on 15.01.2001. Another complaint was received on 17.01.2001 against the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat, Khudala in its meeting dated 211.2000 passed a resolution for removal of the petitioner as she was not distributing the nutritious articles. On receipt of complaint, enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the then Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari and he after thorough investigation found that petitioner has committed serious illegalities. He submitted the enquiry report to the respondent No. 2 and thereafter, vide order dated 19.03.2001 the services of the petitioner were terminated. Thus, there is no violation of principle of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. .8. He submitted the enquiry report to the respondent No. 2 and thereafter, vide order dated 19.03.2001 the services of the petitioner were terminated. Thus, there is no violation of principle of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. .8. In this writ petition the main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the services of the petitioner have been terminated merely on account of complaint but neither any charge-sheet was given to her nor any notice was served to the petitioner before terminating her services. Hence, termination of services of the petitioner is against the violation of principle of natural justice as well as Article 311 of the Constitution of India. .9. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record. 10. Before proceeding further the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India may be referred to which are relevant to the controversy in this regard. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that no person, who is a member of a civil service of the union or an all India service or a civil services of the State or holds a civil post under the union of India shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges, provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. 11. The Article 311 makes no distinction between permanent and temporary members of the services or between persons holding permanent or temporary posts. 12. If a persons services are terminated in contravention of the conditions and formalities prescribed by Article 311 he has a cause of action to complaint to the Courts. 13. Keeping in view the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice, the facts of the present case have to be same. 14. If a persons services are terminated in contravention of the conditions and formalities prescribed by Article 311 he has a cause of action to complaint to the Courts. 13. Keeping in view the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice, the facts of the present case have to be same. 14. The services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order dated 012.2001 and before terminating her services neither any charge-sheet was given to the petitioner nor any notice was served to the petitioner. So far as notice dated 012.2000 is concerned, the respondents have not been able to substantiate that the same was served to the petitioner. Even the enquiry has been conducted by the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari behind the back of the petitioner and during the course of reply no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The order dated 19.03.2001 entails evil and civil consequences on the petitioner, however, before passing the order dated 19.03.2001 no opportunity of hearing was arrorded to the petitioner which is violative of principles of natural justice. 15. Further more in the present case the mandate of provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India has also not been complied with, in as much as firstly, the services of the petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry in accordance with the law nor the petitioner has been informed of the charges levelled against her. The impugned order dated 29.03.2001 (Annexure P.1) is, therefore, violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 16. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3908 of 1989 decided on 23.01.1990. 17. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 29.03.2001 (Annexure P.1) is quashed and set-aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, with all consequential benefits. However, the respondents will be free to take action against her to terminate her services in accordance with law. If she is found guilty of any lapse. 18. No order as to costs.