Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 276 (ORI)

Sanjukta Lenka v. State Of Odisha

2021-06-25

S.K.PANIGRAHI

body2021
JUDGMENT S. Muralidhar, C.J. - This appeal is directed against an order dated 9th October, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No. 3316 of 2015 filed by the Appellant. 2. There is a long history to the present litigation. This is the third round of litigation in this Court. 3. The background facts are that the Appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Arada-III Anganwadi centre on 1st June, 1986. By an order dated 28th May 2012, the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (Respondent No.3) disengaged the Appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Collector, Cuttack (Respondent No.2), who dismissed the appeal by an order dated 16th January, 2013. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the Appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 1963 of 2013 wherein, inter alia, she contended that the Respondent No.2 had blindly relied upon the report of the Supervisor, CDPO, SSWO, and Programme Officer while dismissing the Appellant?s appeal. 5. The said writ petition came to be disposed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 21st February, 2013 after noting that the show cause notice (SCN) in respect to the action which was proposed to be taken against the Appellant was issued by the Child Development Department Officer and not the SubCollector, who had to hear the proceedings. Accordingly, while setting aside the orders of the Sub-Collector and Collector, a direction was issued to the Sub-Collector to reinstate the Appellant as Anganwadi Worker and give her all the consequential benefits. 6. The State of Odisha filed W.A. No. 271 of 2013 against the aforementioned order of the learned Single Judge. On 3rd September, 2014 the appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, but referring the matter to the Sub-Collector to take a fresh decision on the issue after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant herein. The Division Bench in particular found that from the documents placed on record it was clear that an SCN had indeed been issued to the present Appellant and therefore the finding of the learned Single Judge to the contrary was erroneous. 7. Pursuant to the above order of the Division Bench, the Appellant appeared before the Respondent No.3 on 18th September, 2014 and filed her representation. 7. Pursuant to the above order of the Division Bench, the Appellant appeared before the Respondent No.3 on 18th September, 2014 and filed her representation. After going through the available records and the representation of the Appellant, an order was passed on 29th October, 2014 by the Sub-Collector, disengaging the Appellant. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant again filed an appeal before the Collector. While the said appeal was pending, the Appellant learnt that the CDPO (Respondent No.4) had already taken fresh steps for appointment of Anganwadi Worker for the said centre and therefore she filed W.P.(C) No. 22614 of 2014 in this Court. By an order dated 21st November, 2014, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition directing the Collector to dispose of the appeal within three months. Pursuant thereto, the Collector passed an order on 4th February, 2015 dismissing the appeal confirming the order of the SubCollector. 9. The Appellant then filed a 3rd writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3316 of 2015, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 9 th October, 2015. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order held that the Collector took into consideration the conduct of the Appellant and came to a definite finding that the Appellant was unauthorisedly absent on a regular basis and therefore she could not be entrusted with the safety, security, pre-school care and boarding of children. The learned Single Judge observed as under: "As such from perusal of the record it is evident that the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of hearing as per the provision provided in the guideline which has been taken into consideration by the authorities giving concurrent finding regarding jeopardizing the interest of the centre. The Anganwadi worker is being engaged to facilitate the activities which have been meant for the pre-school going children, the pregnant lady etc. and if an Anganwadi Worker will remain absent, the proper object for which the centre has been created will not be achieved. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the petitioner has been disengaged by the Sub-Collector. In view of the reasoning given and in view of the two concurrent findings, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders." 10. This Court heard the submissions of Ms. S. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the petitioner has been disengaged by the Sub-Collector. In view of the reasoning given and in view of the two concurrent findings, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders." 10. This Court heard the submissions of Ms. S. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondents. 11. As has already been noticed, there have been several rounds of litigation and by now the Appellant is fully aware of what the case against her is. Yet it is contended by Ms. Patnaik that the SCN issued to the Appellant did not indicate that her disengagement would be on account of her unauthorized absence. Ms. Patnaik referred to the initial SCN issued to her and submitted that despite the order of this Court the Appellant has not been given adequate opportunity of being heard or defending herself in the inquiry. 12. The Court is unable to accept the above submissions. As can already be seen, this is the 3rd round of litigation and several orders having been passed by the Sub-Collector, Collector, or even by this Court. The Appellant was aware even when the first order of disengagement was challenged that it was on account of her unauthorized absence on a regular basis. By this time the Appellant was already aware of the numerous complaints received against her in the office of the Sub-Collector. For instance, a letter dated 21 st October, 2013 was issued to her by the Sub-Collector stating as under: "It is to inform you that your centre has been visited by SSWO in-charge of this office on dt. 31/08/2013 at 10.30 AM along with CDPO, Cuttack is found that the AWW is absent and the centre running by helper. No hot cooked food is served to the pre-students. VEC president and school teacher are also telling about the regular irregularity of the AWW. Letter No. 796, dt. 19/09/2013 of CDPO, Cuttack Sadar also speaks that the AWW is not at all punctual in her duty." 13. Further the orders passed thereafter by the Sub-Collector and the Collector repeatedly mentioned the ground on which she was being disengaged, viz., her unauthorized absence on different dates during visits of various higher supervisory authorities. Letter No. 796, dt. 19/09/2013 of CDPO, Cuttack Sadar also speaks that the AWW is not at all punctual in her duty." 13. Further the orders passed thereafter by the Sub-Collector and the Collector repeatedly mentioned the ground on which she was being disengaged, viz., her unauthorized absence on different dates during visits of various higher supervisory authorities. The only defense of the Appellant appeared to be that all those reports were "fabricated and baseless?. On the other hand the order refers to the fact that the villagers Arada-III have given complaints on 24th May, 2011 and 8 th June, 2011 about the prolonged absence of the Appellant. Copies of these complaints are part of the record of this appeal. 14. Having been fully aware of what the case against her was, it was incumbent on the Appellant to demonstrate that she was in fact not unauthorisedly absent on several dates referred to in the impugned orders of the Sub-Collector and the Collector and that the Inquiry Reports submitted by the Sub-Divisional Social Welfare Officer and Programme Officer, which formed the basis of the above orders were, as alleged by her, fabricated. The Appellant has absolutely no case in countering the above factual findings which have been rendered time and again concurrently by the Sub-Collector and Collector. 15. After two rounds of litigation, the ground of procedural irregularity is no longer available to the Appellant as sufficient opportunities of hearing have been given to her. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to find any ground made out by the Appellant for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. 16. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. 17. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court?s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court?s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court?s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.