Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 38 (MP)

Manju Tripathi v. State of M. P.

2007-01-12

SURENDRA KUMAR

body2007
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Annexure P-1 dated 19.12.2003; the order passed by the Collector, Annexure P-2 dated 26.8.2002; the resolution of Janpad Panchayat, Annexure P-3 dated 10.12.2001; and the order of termination of the petitioner, Annexure P-4 dated 11.3.2002. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker in the year 1993. As per the petitioner, the respondent No.5 issued a direction to the Janpad Panchayat Narwar to terminate the services of the petitioner. Consequently, the Janpad Panchayat passed a resolution, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-3 dated 10.12.2001 and also passed an order of termination of the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 dated 11.3.2002. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector and the Collector dismissed the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned termination order is arbitrary and illegal and has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and against the circulars issued by the State Government. He further submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner, neither any inquiry was conducted by the authorities. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondent State and respondent No.4 has submitted that after following the proper procedure, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The respondent No.4 has filed a separate return and in the aforesaid return, it has stated that on the basis of the recommendations made by the Project Officer, a decision was taken to remove the petitioner from service. 4. The respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5 in the return have submitted that the respondent No.5 did not issue any direction for removal of the petitioner from service. Contrary to this, the Gram Sabha forwarded its resolution to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Narwar and on the basis of the aforesaid resolution and also considering the fact that the petitioner was absent from duty, her services were terminated. 5. The record of the case from the office of the Collector was also summoned. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker on 17.5.1993. She worked satisfactorily upto a period of 9 years. On 20.9.2001, Gram Panchayat Narwar passed a resolution mentioning the fact that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker on 17.5.1993. She worked satisfactorily upto a period of 9 years. On 20.9.2001, Gram Panchayat Narwar passed a resolution mentioning the fact that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. She was absent from work for the last three months hence, she be removed from service. Copy of the aforesaid resolution was sent to the Supervisor, Sector Karhi and the Project Officer, and the Supervisor in his letter submitted to the Chief Executive Officer mentioned the fact that he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner but the petitioner did not submit any reply and he also visited the place on 4.10.2001 and 5.10.2001 and the petitioner was found absent and submitted his inquiry report to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. It appears that on the basis of the above letter dated 10.12.2001 of Project Officer, Janpad Panchayat passed a resolution of terminating the services of the petitioner and consequently, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 6. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court which was registered as WP No. 1983/2002. This Court disposed of the aforesaid petition vide order dated 27.11.2002 with the observation that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal and she can file an appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector mentioning the fact that her services were terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing. She further submitted that she was raped by one Mr. Gauri Shankar Rawat of the village and due to fear, she could not attend the service and one witness of the case was subsequently murdered. The Collector, without analysing the above submission, dismissed the appeal simply on the ground that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and she was absent from the duty, and the order was upheld by the Commissioner. 7. The State Government prescribed procedure with regard to terminating the service of Anganwadi worker vide circular dated 29.10.1996, copy of the aforesaid circular has been filed as Annexure P-5. As per the aforesaid circular, the Gram Panchayat had no power to terminate the services of an Anganwadi worker. 7. The State Government prescribed procedure with regard to terminating the service of Anganwadi worker vide circular dated 29.10.1996, copy of the aforesaid circular has been filed as Annexure P-5. As per the aforesaid circular, the Gram Panchayat had no power to terminate the services of an Anganwadi worker. However, it can pass a resolution and submit the same to the Project Officer and the Project Officer on his own or from any other officer has to inquire the matter and submit his recommendations to the Janpad Panchayat and the Janpad Panchayat can terminate the services of the petitioner. In the present case, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution with regard to termination of service of the petitioner and the reason mentioned in the resolution dated 10.12.2001 was that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and she was not present on the working place. The aforesaid resolution was sent to the Project Officer and he handed over inquiry to the Supervisor and the Supervisor issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 21.9.2001 and called her reply within three days. It is not clear that whether the aforesaid notice was served on the petitioner or not. He submitted his finding to the Project Officer, Narwar mentioning the fact that when he inspected the place of working of the petitioner, she was absent and thereafter, vide resolution, Janpad Panchayat decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing by the Janpad Panchayat or the Gram Panchayat. The Supervisor, as per his version, issued a show cause notice and asked for a reply of the petitioner within three days but that notice was also not served on the petitioner. The petitioner specifically pleaded in her appeal that she was raped by one Gauri Shankar Rawat of the village and one witness of the case was Arnar Singh Rawat and he was murdered on 20th July, 2001 and he was murdered by Gauri Shankar and there was also pressure on the petitioner to not to depose in the case of rape and for the aforesaid reason, the petitioner could not attend the duty. In my opinion, this was a relevant and cogent factor with regard to the absence of the petitioner from duty and unfortunately, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Project Officer did not consider the above fact in their orders. This Court in Suruchi Bai Dhoba v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ 439 has held that the services of the Anganwadi worker cannot be terminated without giving an opportunity of hearing. From the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before terminating her services and there were cogent reasons put forth by the petitioner for her absence for a limited period. 8. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The impugned orders Annexure P-1 dated 19.12.2003; Annexure P-2 dated 26.8.2002; Annexure P-3 resolution of Janpad Panchayat dated 10.12.2001; and Annexure P-4 order of termination dated 11.3.2002 are hereby quashed. 9. It is ordered that the petitioner would be treated in service continuously and the petitioner would also be entitled to all the consequential benefits including the salary when she was out of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequently, the petitioner was taken back in service. Hence the petitioner would be given the arrears of salary for the period when she was out of employment from the date of termination upto the date of being taken back in service and the petitioner will be also entitled to all the revisions of salary and other benefits, treating her in continuous service. No order as to cost.