Service Law – Termination – Cancellation of appointment as Anganbari Sevika – Before terminating appellant from service, inquiry was held behind her back and show cause notice was issued to her nor any preliminary inquiry was conducted in present case – Authorities are bound by principle of natural justice by providing minimum opportunity of hearing to employee before imposing harsh penalty like dismissal from service – Adherence to principle of natural justice is one of requisite principles to be followed by quasi-judicial authority – In this case, both respondents District Programme Officer and District Magistrate have passed order of termination in illegal and mechanical manner – Competent authority before imposing any penalty specified in Rule or Guidelines has to pass a detailed order and such order has to be a speaking order – Orders passed by District Programme Officer and District Magistrate cancelling selection of petitioner are in violation of principles of natural justice – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner directed to be reinstated on post of Anganbari Sevika and authorities shall also extend her all monetary and service benefits from the date she was terminated from service till reinstatement into service – Appeal allowed. (Paras 11, 12, 15 to 18)

Cases Referred:

Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496; Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chetan Kamble, 2022 SCC Online SC 246 – Relied.

Purnendu Singh, J. – In the present appeal, appellant has assailed the order dated 03.07.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17378 of 2011 whereby and whereunder learned Single Judge has pleased to dismiss the writ application filed on behalf of the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was selected on the post of Anganbari Sevika in the year 2008 at Anganbari Centre – 92, Mushahari Tola under Virpur Panchayat of Basopatti Block, District – Madhubani. On 20.09.2010, inspection of Anganbari Centre – 92 was done by the Child Development Project Officer, Madhubani (hereinafter referred to as “C.D.P.O.”) and a report was sent to the District Programme Officer, Madhubani alleging several irregularities committed by the appellant. The District Programme Officer, Madhubani on the basis of the report submitted by the C.D.P.O. served a show cause on the appellant contained in Letter No. 1412 dated 10.11.2010 alleging therein several irregularities to have been committed by the appellant in which among others, the allegation regarding irregular distribution of take home ration and non-preparation and less-distribution of poshahar was alleged against the appellant. The appellant filed a detailed show cause within time on 16.11.2010. The District Programme Officer passed an order dated 26.11.2010 contained in Memo No. 1442 dated 29.11.2010 cancelling the appointment of the appellant as Anganbari Sevika.

3. Aggrieved with the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the District Programme Officer, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Collector, Madhubani and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2011/30.03.2011.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant was running the Anganbari Centre efficiently and at no point of time any complaint was made by any of the beneficiary regarding any type of irregularities. The Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat Raj and Pramukh had never found any irregularity to have been committed by the appellant. The Child Development Project Officer due to some extraneous reasons on the basis of false and fabricated complaint alleged to be made by the beneficiary reported certain irregularities to have been committed by the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant was served with a show cause dated 10.11.2010 and she had given her categorical reply on 16.11.2010 to each and every charge levelled against her by the C.D.P.O. within a week denying all the charges levelled against her. The District Programme O