Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1076 (MP)

Sarika v. Women and Child Development Department

2015-10-07

A.C.SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : A.C. Sharma, J. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 06/09/2014 by which the petitioner's services has been put to an end. 2. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker on 22/10/2009. She was served with a show cause notice dated 06/09/2014 and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 06/09/2014. 3. The petitioner's contention is that without holding any enquiry as provided under the Scheme relating to the appointment of Anganwadi Workers dated 10/07/2007, the services of the petitioner were put to an end, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent - State has vehemently argued before this Court that an enquiry took place on 04/09/2014 and based upon the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued on 06/09/2014. Earlier also a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, the services of the petitioner has been put to an end. 5. This Court has carefully gone through the Scheme relating to the appointment of Anganwadi Worker dated 10/07/2007 and the same provides for appointment and termination of Anganwadi Workers. The Scheme provides for holding an enquiry in case an Anganwadi Worker has committed some misconduct. 6. In the present case, so far as the so called enquiry is concerned, the same took place behind the back of the petitioner. No opportunity of hearing and no opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings was given to the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry which took place behind the back of the petitioner the services of the petitioner has been put to an end. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent - State has vehemently argued before this Court that proper show cause notices were issued and thereafter, they have conducted the enquiry. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that at no point of time the respondents permitted or directed the petitioner to appear in any kind of enquiry conducted by the respondents. Not only this, the facts also reveal that the last show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06/09/2014 and on the very same date the respondents have terminated the petitioner. Not only this, the facts also reveal that the last show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06/09/2014 and on the very same date the respondents have terminated the petitioner. The notice dated 06/09/2014 passed by the respondents reads as under:- dk;kZy; ,dhd`r cky fodkl lsok ifj;kstuk cM+okg ftyk [kjxsu (e0iz0) Øekad@469@LFkk0@vkbZ0lh0Mh0,l0@2014 cM+okg] fnukad 6@9@14 izfr] Jhefr lkfjdk pkSjs vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ vkaxuokM+h dsUnz fcluiqjh vafre psrkouh i= mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd fnukad 03-09-2014 dks izkr% 11%30 cts esjs ,oa i;Zos{kd }kjk vkaxuokM+h dsUnz dk la;qDr fujh{k.k fd;k x;k] fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ds vkaxuokM+h dsUnz can ik;k x;k vki fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ,oa fcuk vodk'k fy, vkaxuokM+h dsUnz ij vuqifLFkr ikbZ xbZA blls izrhr gksrk gS fd vkids }kjk izfrfnu fu;fer vkaxuokM+h dsUnz lapkyu ugha fd;k tkrk gS iwoZ esa Hkh vkidks dk;kZy; }kjk lwpuk i= fn;k x;k Fkk fdUrq fQj Hkh vkius vius dk;Z esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha fd;k x;kA mDr d`R; vkidh dk;Z ds izfr ?kksj vfu;ferrk dks n'kkZrk gSA D;ksa u vkids fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh fd tk;sA mDr laca/k esa vkidks lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkrk gS viuk Li"Vhdj.k le{k esa vkt gh izLrqr djsaA vkidk tokc larks"ktud ugha gksus ij vkidh lsok;sa lekIr dh tkosxhA ftlds fy;s vki Loa; tokcnkj jgsaxhA gLrk@& ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ,dhd`r cky fodkl ifj;kstuk cM+okg Øekad@--------@LFkk0@vkbZ0lh0Mh0,l0@2014 cM+okg] fnukad-------------- izfrfyfi%& 1- ftyk dk;kZdze vf/kdkjh ftyk [kjxksu dks lknj lwpukFkZ izsf"krA 2- vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ Jherh@dqekj----------- dh vkSj vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA 3- O;Drhxr uLrhA gLrk@& ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh ,dhd`r cky fodkl ifj;kstuk cM+okg 8. Admittedly the aforesaid notice has been issued on 06/09/2014. By the aforesaid notice, time has been granted to submit a reply and on the same date the petitioner's services have been put to an end. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court the services of the petitioner could not have been put to an end without holding a proper enquiry and the respondents have certainly passed an ex parte order on the basis of an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner, meaning thereby, the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice and fair play and therefore, they have flouted their own guidelines dated 10/07/2007. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 06/09/2014 is hereby quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent - State has argued before this Court that the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 06/09/2014 is hereby quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent - State has argued before this Court that the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal. 11. In light of the judgment delivered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 , this Court is of the considered opinion that only because some alternative remedy is available, as stated by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be thrown out of the Court, as the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice and fair-play. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court as the order terminating the petitioner has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, meaning thereby, the order has been passed without following the statutory provisions of law, the writ petition is certainly maintainable and therefore, the objection raised is of no help to the State Government. 13. The writ petition stands allowed with all consequential benefits including 50% back wages. 14. C.C. as per rules.