Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 9 (MP)

Sheela Sharma v. State of M. P.

2019-01-02

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs: ''7.I. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 2.5.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 and Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed to respondent No.2 to pay the arrear of salary back wages and consequential benefits. II. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be also be granted.'' It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that no enquiry was conducted by the authorities before removing the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Worker. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner was working as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Village Bapcha, Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha. On 31.5.2016, 27.10.2016 and 23.12.2016, inspection of Anganwadi Centre was carried out and it was found that the petitioner is operating the Anganwadi Centre in her house and in spite of repeated instructions, the Anganwadi Centre was not shifted to the rented premises. Even otherwise, during every inspection certain irregularities were found including non-grant of different benefits to the beneficiaries, which were not corrected by the petitioner. Accordingly, on 27.10.2016, a notice was was issued to the petitioner which was not replied by her. Thereafter, the Project Officer on 17.4.2017 inspected the Anganwadi Centre and found that the irregularities which were earlier pointed out, were not removed by the petitioner and accordingly, a notice was issued on 18.4.2017 and the reply filed by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and accordingly, her services were terminated by order dated 2.5.2017 (Annexure P-1). 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Lateri, District Vidisha, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Collector, Vidisha, which too has been dismissed by order dated 3.1.2018 (Annexure P-2). The order of the Additional Collector, Vidisha was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, which too has been dismissed by order dated 3.10.2018 (Annexure P-3). 4. The order of the Additional Collector, Vidisha was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, which too has been dismissed by order dated 3.10.2018 (Annexure P-3). 4. Challenging the orders passed by the authorities, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per the policy issued for selection and appointment of anganwadi workers, the petitioner could have been removed only after conducting a departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that initially an enquiry should have been conducted by the Observer, who was required to forward his recommendation within fifteen days. The Project Officer was under obligation to give seven days' time to anganwadi worker and after giving her an opportunity of hearing, the order of removal could have been passed. However, no such procedure was adopted. The Project Officer was under obligation to give seven days' time to anganwadi worker and after giving her an opportunity of hearing, the order of removal could have been passed. However, no such procedure was adopted. To substantiate his submission, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon clause D of the policy which reads as under: ^n- vk¡xuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls gVkus dh izfØ;k ¼1½ ;fn vkaxuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk }kjk vkaxuckM+h dsUnz dk lapkyu fu;ekuqlkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS vFkok muds }kjk vius dŸkZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa ykijokgh dh tkrh gS rks ifj;kstuk vfËkdkjh@efgyk ,oa cky fodkl ds vU; mPp vf/kdkjh }kjk vk¡xuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks lquokbZ dk volj nsrs gq, tk¡p esa nks"kh ik, tkus ij in ls i`Fkd~ fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼2½ ;fn lg;ksfxuh ekr` lfefr fdlh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds dk;Z ls larq”V ugha gS rks i`Fkd~ lg;ksfxuh ekr` lfefr bl vk'k; dk izLrko mi;qDr dkj.k n'kkZrs gq, cSBd esa izLrqr djsxh ,oa cSBd eas izLrko cgqer ls ikfjr gksus ij i;Zos{kd dks izsf’kr djsxhA i;Zos{kd Lo;a lacaf/kr lfefr }kjk izkIr izLrko ds ifjizs{; esa gVkus ds dkj.kkss ds rF;ksa dh tk¡p djsxhA mlds i'pkr~ viuk tk¡p izfrosnu 15 fnol esa Li"V vuq'kalk lfgr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh dks Hkstuk gksxkA ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk i;Zos{kd ds tk¡p izfrosnu dk ijh{k.k djus ,oa mi;qDr dkj.k ik;s tkus ij lkr fnol esa vk¡xuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh lsok lekfIr dk fu.kZ; ysdj lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k tkjh fd;k tk,xkA vk¡xuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls i`Fkd~ djus ds iwoZ lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ;fn lg;ksfxuh ekr` lfefr o i;Zos{kd ds er esa fHkUurk gks rks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk tk¡p mijkar fu.kZ; fy;k tkdj ftyk dk;ZØe vfËkdkjh@ftyk efgyk cky fodkl vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu i'pkr~ in ls i`Fkd~ fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼3½ ;fn i;Zos{kd dh tkudkjh esa dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds fo#) dksbZ xaHkhj f'kdk;r lh/ks vkrh gS rks og bu f'kdk;rksa ij tk¡p mijkar viuk tk¡p izfrosnu 15 fnol esa Li"V vuq'kalk lfgr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh dks Hkstuk gksxkA ifj;kstu vf/kdkjh }kjk i;Zos{kd ds tk¡p izfrosnu dk ijh{k.k djus ,oa mi;qDr dkj.k ik, tkus ij lkr fnol esa vk¡xuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh lsok lekfIr dk fu.kZ; ysdj lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k tkjh fd;k tkosxkA vk¡xuckM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls i`Fkd~ djus ds iwoZ lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ¼4½ dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh mez 60 o"kZ iw.kZ gksus ij mudh lsok Lor% lekIr gks tk,xhAß 5. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that so far as clause D (3) of the policy is concerned, the same has no application in the present case, because the complaint was not received by any Observer, but it was made by the Project Officer himself and under these circumstances, the Observer, who is subordinate to the Project Officer, was not required to look into the complaint of the Project Officer. It is further submitted that the petitioner was given a show cause notice and she filed her reply and in the said reply, she fairly conceded that she is an illiterate person and is not able to write or read and the entire record is maintained by her son and even the mobile is also operated by her son and, therefore, she is not in a position to make the record available in time. It is submitted that once the petitioner had admitted the allegations, then there was no need to conduct a further enquiry and as per clause D (1) of the scheme, it is not required that a full-fledged enquiry should be conducted and only requirement under the law is to give an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that whenever a complaint is made, then the Observer has to conduct an enquiry and is under obligation to forward his enquiry report within fifteen days' to the Integrated Child Development Project Officer is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, Clause D (3) of the Scheme does not apply under the facts and circumstances of the case. As per clause D (3) of the Scheme, the Observer is required to conduct an enquiry if he directly receives the complaint. Clause D (3) of the Scheme cannot be made applicable in all the cases. Furthermore, the Project Officer is senior to the Observer. If certain irregularities are found by the Project Officer by himself, then it cannot be said that the Project Officer has to forward his complaint to the Observer for an enquiry. 8. It is next contended by the counsel for the petitioner that no departmental enquiry was conducted by the respon-dents. It is submitted that giving a show cause notice to the petitioner is must. 8. It is next contended by the counsel for the petitioner that no departmental enquiry was conducted by the respon-dents. It is submitted that giving a show cause notice to the petitioner is must. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kansa v. State of M. P. and others, reported in 2015 (4) MPLJ 151 . 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that principles of natural justice have been violated and thus, the order of termination is bad in law, is concerned, the same cannot be accepted under the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not the case of the petitioner that no show cause notice was given to her. Further, it is clearly mentioned in the impugned orders that that the petitioner had admitted her mistakes. Once the allegations made against the petitioner are accepted by her, then under the facts and circumstances of the case, no further enquiry is required. Furthermore, under the policy issued by the State Government which deals with appointment as well as removal of anganwadi workers, no procedure has been laid down for terminating the services except by mentioning that the services should not be terminated except by giving an opportunity of hearing and by conducting an enquiry. It is not the requirement under the policy to conduct a full-fledged departmental enquiry.The petitioner has beautifully kept silence in the petition with regard to show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and the reply filed by her. Even the copy of the show cause notice as well as the copy of the reply filed by her, have not been placed on record. The petitioner has not controverted the findings given by the authorities to the effect that the petitioner, in her reply to the show cause notice, had admitted that she is an illiterate person and cannot read and write and, therefore, she is not in a position to make the record available in time and the entire record is maintained by her son and even the mobile is operated by her son. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner who is working as an anganwadi worker, is unable to perform her duties. Even in the petition, the petitioner has not rebutted the allegations against her. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner who is working as an anganwadi worker, is unable to perform her duties. Even in the petition, the petitioner has not rebutted the allegations against her. Once the petitioner has admitted the allegations and has tendered her apology and it is the case of the respondents that in spite of repeated opportunities the petitioner did not improve her work and continuously operated the Anganwadi Centre in her house and even the breakfast and food were not distributed regularly and the petitioner was all the time busy in her own household works, the record of the Anganwadi Centre was incomplete, under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality has been committed by the authorities in terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 2.5.2017 passed by the respondent No. 2, the order dated 3.1.2018 passed by Additional Collector, Vidisha in Appeal No. 75/Appeal/2016-17 and the order dated 9.10.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Appeal No. 656/ Appeal/2017-18 are hereby affirmed. 11. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.