Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 220 (GAU)

Moniwara Begum v. State of Assam & Ors

2013-03-21

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2013
This order will dispose of WP(C) Nos. 5881/2011, 6530/2011 and 6531/2011. 2. Facts and reliefs sought for in all the three cases being identical, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. At the outset, facts of the three cases may be briefly noted. WP(C) No. 5881/2011 4. Petitioner Smt. Moniwara Begum @ Monowara Begum Majharbhuiya was appointed as Anganwadi Helper in No. 108 Chirakandi South Anganwadi Centre on 15.9.1999 by Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Salchapra ICDS Project in the district of Cachar (Assam). 5. After rendering service for about 12 years, petitioner was terminated from her engagement vide order dated 19.7.2011 issued by CDPO, Salchapra ICDS Project. The reason for termination was stated to be due to negligence of duty and remaining absent for a long time. 6. Being aggrieved, she has filed the present writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the termination order dated 19.7.2011. 7. Contention of the petitioner is .that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to her before termination of service. She has also disputed the correctness of the allegation. 8. This court by order dated 23.11.2011 issued notice of motion. By order dated 11.2.2013, case was admitted for hearing. 9. Respondent No. 4, i.e., CDPO, Salchapra ICDS project has filed affidavit. Stand taken is that due to long time absence and non-performance of duty by the petitioner, Divisional Programme Officer directed vide order dated 12.7.2011 to terminate the engagement of the petitioner. Accordingly, CDPO issued the impugned order. WP(C)No. 6530/2011 10. Petitioner Smt. Reba Rani Sinha was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in No. 79 West Sarishakuri Anganwadi Centre under Kalain ICDS Project in the district of Cachar vide order dated 28.2.2002 issued by the CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project. In the course of her engagement, she was transferred to No. 14 Bhagmara Anganwadi Centre on 1.8.2007. Since then petitioner worked in the said Centre. 11. After rendering service for about 9 years, CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project issued order dated 21.7.2011 terminating the engagement of the petitioner on the ground of absence from the Centre and negligence of duty. 12. Petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the said order on the ground that it was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor was any opportunity of hearing granted to her. 12. Petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the said order on the ground that it was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor was any opportunity of hearing granted to her. The allegations which formed the basis of termination are incorrect. Petitioner has submitted representation but there was no response. 13. This court by order dated 23.12.2011 admitted the writ petition and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.7.2011. 14. Respondent No. 5, i.e., CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project has filed counter affidavit. Stand taken is that petitioner did not perform her duty regularly. There was allegation of financial irregularity against the petitioner which was enquired into. Thereafter, petitioner refunded an amount of 8400 to the Circle Supervisor which was meant for implementation of the scheme. WP(C) No. 6531/2011 15. Petitioner Smt. Leena Tantubay was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in No. 9.8 Sindura TE Anganwadi Centre under Kalain ICDS Project in the district of Cachar by order dated 28.2.2002 issued by the CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project. 16. After rendering service for more than 9 years, petitioner was terminated from her engagement vide order dated 21.7.2011 issued by the CDPO on the ground of absence from the Centre and negligence of duty. She submitted representation on 17.11.2011 for her re-instatement but there was no response. 17. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 21.7.2011. 18. Contention of the petitioner is that no notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to her before termination of her engagement. She also denied the allegations levelled against her. 19. This court by order dated 23.12.2011 admitted the writ petition and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21.7.2011. 20. Respondent No. 5, i.e., CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project has filed affidavit. She has stated that after her marriage in February, 2007, petitioner did not attend her duties regularly and did not distribute Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) food stuff. Since petitioner was irregular and negligent in discharging duties, she was terminated from her engagement. Enquiry was conducted against her which found the allegations correct. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 22. She has stated that after her marriage in February, 2007, petitioner did not attend her duties regularly and did not distribute Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) food stuff. Since petitioner was irregular and negligent in discharging duties, she was terminated from her engagement. Enquiry was conducted against her which found the allegations correct. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 22. Without commenting on the merit of the allegations levelled against the petitioners which led to termination of their engagements, a perusal of the impugned orders do not indicate that any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners prior to termination of their engagements. 23. Short point for consideration is whether petitioners were entitled to a notice or hearing before termination of their engagements, considering the nature of their engagements? 24. This court in a recent order dated 15.3.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 2724/2011 took the view that even though engagements of Anganwadi Workers or Helpers are not against any post as is understood in service law, they would still be entitled to minimum protection of the principles of natural justice, which would meet the requirement of fair procedure. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under: - “Anganwadi workers are engaged under the Integrated Child Development Scheme, which is a centrally sponsored scheme. Though such engagements are against the scheme and are not appointments against any post, nonetheless, the basic principles of natural justice are required to be followed before cancellation of such engagement, more so when cancellation is on account of alleged lack of performance or misconduct. An Anganwadi worker or helper is at least entitled to a notice disclosing the ground or reason for the proposed action contemplated against her so that she can meet the same. The cancellation order need not be a detailed one but should at least disclose some application of mind by the authority as to why the engagement is being cancelled. The materials placed on record neither discloses any such notice to the petitioner nor any such application of mind. Under such circumstances, the impugned cancellation cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed.” 25. Similar is the position in the three cases under consideration. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were put on notice before termination of their engagements. Under such circumstances, the impugned cancellation cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed.” 25. Similar is the position in the three cases under consideration. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were put on notice before termination of their engagements. Learned Standing Counsel also could not show any distinguishable feature in the present batch of cases. 26. In view of above, the impugned termination orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed; Petitioners shall be re-engaged in their respective assignments. 27. It is, however, made clear that this order will not debar the authorities from taking such action as may be considered necessary in accordance with law. 28. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed. 29. No cost. _______________