The court emphasized the importance of following the mandatory provisions prescribed by law while working as members of the Child Welfare Committee, and the refusal to issue directions to accept resignations when specific allegations were pending in a criminal case against the petitioners.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Dige, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. By this petition, the petitioners are praying to quash and set aside the termination order of Chairperson and members of Child Welfare Committee, Jalna issued by notification dated 9th March, 2021 of Women and Child Development Department, Government of Maharashtra. It is also prayed to direct the respondents to accept the resignations of petitioner nos.1 to 4 as Chairperson and Members of Child Welfare Committee, Jalna. The petitioners are also seeking additional reliefs.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

a) Petitioner no.1 was appointed as Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee (for short, 'CWC'), Jalna from 6th April, 2018, and Petitioner nos.2 to 4 were appointed as members of CWC, Jalna from 6th April, 2018, for a period of three years from the date of their appointments. Petitioner no.5 was appointed as member of CWC from 8th March, 2019, for a period of three years from the date of appointment.

b) Respondent no.1 is the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Maharashtra and is responsible for the development of women and child in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent no.2 is the Commissioner of Women and Child Development Department, State of Maharashtra. Respondent no.3 is the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child Development Department, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. Respondent No.4 is the District Collector, who is Grievance Redressal Authority of the Child Welfare Committee. Respondent no.5 is the District Woman and Child Development Officer, Jalna.

4. On 9th January, 2020, a surprise visit was conducted by President District Legal Services Authority/Principal District Judge, Jalna to Late Rajkunvar Rameshchandra Bang Shishuvihar Gruh, run by Maharashtra Marwadi Charitable Trust (for short, 'Charitable trust'). The said Shishuvihar gruh and observation home meant for mentally retarded children situated at Jalna. The Principal District Judge found several irregularities. The condition of child home was pathetic, unhygienic and unhealthy. Records of purchases were not maintained. The learned Principal District Judge sent a report to the Guardian Judge of Jalna district, High Court, Aurangabad. This Court has taken cognizance of said report, which resulted into a Suo-moto Public Interest Litigation no.2 of 2020.

5. The Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child Development, Aurangabad (Respondent No.3), conducted enquiry of child home. On 8th December, 2020, the F.I.R. came to be registered against the President, Secretary and trustees of the Child Home and also against the petitioners. On 11th December, 2020, petitioner no.1 lodged F.I.R. against the officers of respondents at Kadim Police Station, Jalna. The petitioners gave resignations of the post of Chairperson and members of CWC, alleging that without giving any notice, without taking say of Child Welfare Committee, a false and concocted FIR is lodged against Chairperson and members of CWC. The Committee felt this action as insult and injustice of quasi-judicial authority. Fed up by the behaviour and apathy of Women and Child Development Department, petitioner no.3 gave their resignation on 15th December, 2020 and petitioner nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 on 06.02.2021 gave resignations. However, no action was taken on the resignations of the petitioners. By Government Notification dated 9th March, 2021, the termination order of the petitioners is issued.

The said notification is under challenge in this petition.

6. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are responsible persons in the society. The termination order specifically cites holding of enquiry. In fact, no enquiry is conducted, no show-cause notice is issued, no witnesses are examined, no opportunity to cross examine witnesses is given and no say of the petitioners is taken to explain the alleged