Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 628 (MP)

Suman Barwade v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2024-09-20

VIVEK JAIN

body2024
ORDER : The present petition has been filed against the order (Annnexure P-9) whereby the petitioner’s services as Anganwadi worker have been terminated on allegation of misconduct by passing stigmatic order. 2. The documents placed on record indicate that prior to termination of services vide (Annexure P-1) a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide (Annexure P-9) which runs into as many as four pages and contains allegations right from the year 2015 till the year 2017. Many of the allegations related to not keeping of cordial relation with the members of community and not providing mid-day meals in time. One allegation related to encroachment of land of private person and one allegation related to using marksheet of sister to get appointment. The allegations in the said show cause notice are 15 in number. 3. The petitioner replied to the said allegations by filing a reply and denied the allegation. After such denial no further opportunity was given to the petitioner and straightaway order (Annexure P-1) was issued which hardly runs in one page and speaks about earlier warnings given to the petitioner in the year 2017. The notice (Annexure P-9) and the reply thereon has been considered hardly in half page and the authority has simply written that the reply has not been found to be satisfactory and approval has been received from SDO Revenue, Shahpur and on his approval the services are being terminated. 4. The petitioner initially filed writ petition before this Court which was decided on 23.08.2021 directing the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal. The review petition against the said order was also rejected on 15.11.2021. Thereafter the petitioner filed writ appeal which was dismissed for want of compliance of preemptory order and thereafter she filed statutory appeal before the Collector which was rejected by order dated 05.01.2023 on the ground of delay and the second appeal was also dismissed on the ground of delay by (Annnexure P-19). 5. The procedure for taking action against the Aanganwadi workers is laid down in circular dated 27.11.2020 placed on record as (Annexure R-1). 5. The procedure for taking action against the Aanganwadi workers is laid down in circular dated 27.11.2020 placed on record as (Annexure R-1). As per the said circular the procedure for disciplinary action is laid down in clause-2 whereby upon report of any corrupt conduct or irregularity or negligence of the Aanganwadi worker a show cause notice has to be issued within three days and thereafter reasonable opportunity of hearing has to be given and then on merits the order has to be passed after taking approval of SDO, Revenue. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 742 of 2020 has held that though appointment is not regular appointment like Government employee but it is the only source of income for women workers in rural areas working as Aanganwadi Worker. Therefore, after rendering their services for long time termination by issuing a mere show cause notice would be a too harsh action and the State Government should think about providing some minor penalty and it is not essential that in every case of any misconduct the only punishment should be termination from service. The Division Bench in WA No. 742 of 2020 has held as under:- "1. Before parting with the case we would like to observe that the appointment and service conditions of the Agwanwadi workers and assistants are governed under the circular dated 10.07.2007. The circular dated 10.07.2007 provides the qualification, eligibility, mode of appointment/ selection and procedure for removal. Under this circular, the Agwanwadi Workers/ Assistants are working for the last two decades without any element of permanency. This court has experienced in the number of cases that on surprise inspection if Agwanwadi Worker/ Assistant is found absent or there was some negligence in respect of maintenance of register distribution of meals etc. on one or two instances in the entire service career, the competent authority after issuing the notice terminate her services. Except for termination, no other punishment is provided in the circular dated 10.07.2007. Even though the appointment is not regular appointment like Government employees but this is the only source of income for the women workers in the rural area These Agwanwadi Workers/Assistants work in the backward rural areas for the execution of beneficiaries schemes of the State government through women and child department. Even though the appointment is not regular appointment like Government employees but this is the only source of income for the women workers in the rural area These Agwanwadi Workers/Assistants work in the backward rural areas for the execution of beneficiaries schemes of the State government through women and child department. Therefore, after rendering service for one or two decades termination from service by issuing show-cause notice would be too harsh. The State Government should think about providing some minor or other major punishments by amending the circular dated 10.07.2007. Even if it is found that misconduct is minor but in the circular dated 10.07.2007 except for termination, no other punishment is there. In every service rule, there are two types of punishments minor and major and under these two broad categories other types of minor and major punishments are provided. Therefore, for these Aganwadi workers and Assistants, there should be a proportionality between misconduct and punishment. In the present case, even if the petitioner was found absent from duty for which she has submitted an explanation with necessary documents, then enquiry ought to have been conducted. If after enquiry the charges are found proved, then only the punishment order ought to have been passed. The clause 4-D of the circular dated 10.7.2007 specifically provides that: ^^lquokbZ dk volj nsrs gq, tkap esa nks"kh ik;s tkus ij** it means there are two requirements i.e. No.1. the opportunity of hearing and No.2 if found guilty after enquiry. Hence Agwanwadi Workers/ Assistants can be terminated only after proving the charge after conducting an enquiry. Hence the contention of the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted that there is no provision for conducting enquiry in the circular dated 1.07.2007. Hence in absence of following the provision, the writ court has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is required. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. 7. From perusal of the order (Annexure P-1) it is seen that nowhere the authority has reached to a conclusion that how the allegations against the petitioner are major misconduct justifying the termination from service and in what manner the authority has reached to a conclusion that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory. 7. From perusal of the order (Annexure P-1) it is seen that nowhere the authority has reached to a conclusion that how the allegations against the petitioner are major misconduct justifying the termination from service and in what manner the authority has reached to a conclusion that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory. The order is utterly non-speaking in this regard and only the allegations against the petitioner are mentioned in brief in one paragraph of the order and then it has been mentioned that her reply has not been found to be satisfactory. On what ground the reply has been found to be unsatisfactory is nowhere mentioned in the order (Annexure P-1). Thus, the order (Annexure P-1) is vulnerable on the ground of non-following of required procedure as well as being non-speaking in nature. It does not withstand judicial scrutiny. 8. Though in the reply the respondents have come out with a case that some other person has been appointed to fill up the post but the order (Annexure R-2) itself mentions that the appointment has been made subject to the final decision of the case filed by the petitioner in the matter of her termination. Thus the appointee vide (Annexure R-2) would not get any equity over and above the rights of the present petitioner. 9. Though the appeals by Collector and Commissioner have been dismissed on the ground of delay only but since order (Annexure P-1) has been found to be patently non-speaking and arbitrary in nature instead of remanding the matter in appeal to carry out unnecessary formalities, it is thought appropriate to interfere in the order (Annexure P-1). Consequently, the order (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The respondents will be at liberty to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after following the due procedure as laid down by the Division Bench. It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to take fresh action against the petitioner only after reinstating the petitioner in service. The issue of back wages shall be dealt with as per outcome of fresh proceedings. The petition is allowed and disposed of.