Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 293 (ALL)

Saroj Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2015-02-13

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2015
JUDGMENT Dr. Justice Devendra Kumar Arora, J By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 26.06.2014 passed by District Programme Officer, District Balrampur (opposite party no.4) and further prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned order and allow her to work on the post in question. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of Aganbadi Karyakatri in Village Deoria Adam, Vikas Khand-Rehra Bazar, District Balrampur vide order dated 26.09.2001, in pursuance thereof she submitted her joining on 28.09.2001 and started work with full satisfaction of the authority concerned without any complaint. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that on the information of one Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava (devar of petitioner), who being jealous with the petitioner, published a news item in daily newspaper "Hindustan" dated 10.06.2014, with respect to certain irregularities at the Anganwadi Center in question, where the petitioner was working, on the basis thereof the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide impugned order dated 26.06.2014 by the opposite parties without issuing any show cause notice or giving her any opportunity of hearing, which is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also a submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is helpless and poor lady and is facing financial crisis. Anyhow, she earned bread and butter for her and her family members, but the same was snatched by the opposite party no.4 without application of mind on the basis of wrong information, published in the daily newspaper dated 10.06.2014. Feeling aggrieved against the action of the opposite parties, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition challenging the validity of the impugned order on various grounds. 3. Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi Karyakatri on honorarium basis in District Balrampur vide order dated 26.092001. 3. Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi Karyakatri on honorarium basis in District Balrampur vide order dated 26.092001. He further submits that a news item with title "Garibon Ka Basera Banker Reh Gaya Hai Anganbadi Kendra" has been published in daily newspaper "Hindustan" dated 10.06.2014, upon which a team of two Mukhya Sevikas was constituted to conduct an enquiry into the matter and after enquiry on 13.06.2014, the enquiry report dated 25.06.2014 has been submitted by which it reveals that the labours were residing in the Anganwadi Center of petitioner and when records were asked from the petitioner the same were not provided to them by saying that the same had been lost. Thereafter a notice was served upon the petitioner but she refused to accept the same. Anganwadi Center of the petitioner was again inspected by the District Programme Officer, on 25.06.2014, then it was found locked and the material of the labours was kept outside the Center and petitioner was absent. In view of the above, honorarium based services of the petitioner were discontinued, in accordance with rules. 4. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel also placed reliance upon the case of State of Karnataka vs. Ameerbi and others reported in (2007)11 SCC 681 wherein the following observations have been made: - "The post of anganwadi workers are not statutory post. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It .....of the children. Anganwadi workers, however, do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under a statute. Their posts are not created. Recruitment rules ordinary applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme existed." 5. Recruitment rules ordinary applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme existed." 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel also submitted that the building in which Anganwadi Center was running has been constructed many years back and the petitioner was staying with her husband at Gonda due to which the said center was not running and in the said building the MANREGA labours were residing, therefore, the certificate annexed by the petitioner with respect of running of the Anganwadi Center appears to be forged. 6. Lastly the learned Additional Chief Standing counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed after serving notice dated 13.06.2014 by the Mukhya Sevika to which the petitioner declined to receive which is reflected from the enquiry report dated 25.06.2014. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner nor any enquiry has been conducted in the matter and without application of mind the impugned order dated 26.09.2014 has been passed, cannot be accepted nor believed and thus, the impugned order dated 26.09.2014 is totally legal, valid, justified and in accordance with law, which requires no interference, at all, by this Court. 7. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner denying the averments made by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit, merely by saying that the so called proceedings have been done on paper and nobody went on spot for inquiry or inspection and the case law cited by the opposite parties is not applicable in the instant case as no opportunity of hearing has ever been given to the petitioner, which is against the provisions of law as well as fundamental rights. Moreover, in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has also averred that the fact of refusing notice is not at all correct, as all the proceedings have been done on paper in a close room and if the notice was not received by the petitioner, then the opposite parties ought to have adopted other modes of service upon the petitioner; like sending the notice through registered post or affixing the notice at the prescribed place, which has not been done and this shows that the action taken by the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, placed reliance on two judgments rendered in the case of Motilal Memorial Society and another vs. State of U.P. and others, ( 2008 (26) LCD 967 ) and in the case of M/S Rapti Commission Agency, Lucknow vs. State of U.P. & another ( 2010 (28) LCD 161 ) and submitted that fairness in procedure is part and parcel of the principle of natural justice, guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and all courts have incidental power to set aside any order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice even in the absence of any expressed provision, having regard to the principles of natural justice in such a proceedings. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 10. Admittedly, an action was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of news item published in daily newspaper dated 10.6.2014. From perusal of the record it appears that two-members committee was constituted and sent for inquiry on 13.6.2014 at Anganwadi Centre and after inquiry by the said committee, a notice was said to have been issued on 13.6.2014 calling explanation from the petitioner and upon which an endorsement was made to the effect that the petitioner after reading the notice, refused to accept the same and thereafter the District Programme Officer, Balrampur inspected the Anganwadi Centre on 25.6.2014 and found the same to be closed. Thereafter by means of the impugned order dated 26.6.2014, honorarium based services of the petitioner were terminated. 11. Thereafter by means of the impugned order dated 26.6.2014, honorarium based services of the petitioner were terminated. 11. From pleadings of the opposite parties it is evident that no efforts have been made to serve the notice dated 13.6.2014 after refusal of the same by the petitioner and straightaway impugned order has been passed which caused evil consequences to her. Thus, the action has been taken in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court finds that the action taken by the opposite parties is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the status of the contractual appointment in the case of Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 502 in para 163 has been pleased to hold as under: "163. Even if for the sake of argument, we accept the contention that the expression "liable to be terminated at any time without any notice", is arbitrary and opposed to the basic rule of law, it still has to satisfy the twin tests laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra i.e. firstly, whether the government servant being terminated or reduced in rank thereby had a right to the post or to the rank, as the case may be and, secondly, whether he had been visited with evil consequences. Both of these tests have to be answered in the negative, in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 13. Further, in the case of A.S. Motors Private Limited vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 114 the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 has been pleased to hold: "8. Rules of natural justice, it is by now fairly well settled, are not rigid, immutable or embodied rules that may be capable of being put in straitjacket nor have the same been so evolved as to apply universally to all kind of domestic tribunals and enquiries. What the courts in essence look for in every case where violation of the principle of natural justice is alleged is whether the affected party was given reasonable opportunity to present its case and whether the administrative authority had acted fairly, impartially and reasonably. The doctrine of audi alteram partem is thus aimed at striking at arbitrariness and want of fair play. The doctrine of audi alteram partem is thus aimed at striking at arbitrariness and want of fair play. Judicial pronouncements on the subject have, therefore, recognised that the demands of natural justice may be different in different situations depending upon not only the facts and circumstances of each case but also on the powers and composition of the tribunal and the rules and regulations under which it functions. A court examining a complaint based on violation of rules of natural justice is entitled to see whether the aggrieved party had indeed suffered any prejudice on account of such violation." 14. After examining the case in its entirity this Court comes to the conclusion that the action has been taken against the petitioner in violation of principles of natural justice and by means of the impugned order petitioner has been deprived of her honorarium based services. The action of the opposite parties is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. 15. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.06.2014, passed by District Programme Officer, District Balrampur (opposite party no.4) is hereby quashed. However, it will be open for opposite parties to proceed afresh in accordance with law.