Point of Law: Government servant appointed to be in-charge of current duties of an office cannot exercise any substantive powers of office.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Ms. R. Basar, learned Junior Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. H. Lampu, earned counsel for the respondent No.6.

2. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of the appropriate Writ against the respondent. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker against the Additional Anganwadi Centres/villages at Khyora, Khenewa Circle under the Bameng, ICDS Project with effect from 1st February, 2010 at the monthly honorarium of Rs. 1438/-as fixed by the Government vide Order dated 25.02.2010 by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), East Kameng District, Bameng.

3. That the services of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 24.05.2016 vide the Office Order No.BMG/ICDS/APPT-01/2013-14 dated 24.05.2016 on the purported ground of non-performance of duty and being uneducated and thereafter, vide the Office Order No. BMG/ICDS/APPT-01/2013-14 dated 27.05.2016, the respondent No.5 was appointed as Anganwadi Worker and place of the petitioner;

Aggrieved by these 2 (two) Orders, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

4. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned termination order dated 24.05.2016 has been issued most illegally and whimsically, without even serving any show cause notice, as well as, without affording any hearing opportunity to the petition, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned dismissal order was made solely to accommodate the private respondent No.5, who is the sister-in-law of respondent No.6 is the person who had passed the impugned order, while holding in-charge of the concerned CDPO.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 was holding the charge of the concerned CDPO, Bameng, ICDS Project temporarily for only a period of 2 (two) months, during which he has terminated the services of the petitioner without any substance but with an ulterior motive to accommodate the respondent No.5, being his sister-in-law. He submits that the respondent No.6 has no authority to issue such a termination order, which is beyond his jurisdiction since he was acting as the ICDS only on ‘in-charge basis’, that he cannot perform the duty of termination and appointment of the staff since his substantive post is not of CDPO but as Statistical Assistant and therefore, cannot exercise the substantive power of a CDPO. While taking the charge of the Office of CDPO his duty is to only discharge day-to-day duties and he cannot performed such quasi-judicial function as termination or appointment of any of the staff.

6. He further submits that the petitioner has been sincerely performing her duty since her appointment in 2010 as Aganwadi worker, for the last 6 (six) years and her termination order without being issued any show cause notice, is in grossed violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. He submits that in the termination order, it is mentioned that the termination was due to the nonperformance duties and un-educated. However, there is no substantive complaint as to how the petitioner had not performed her duty. In the show cause notice, which was issued on 29.01.2016, the only complaint mentioned is that during the year 2013-14 she was not performing her duties. That even though the nature of job in her appointment order is temporary, this does not mean that the respondent No.6 can ex-parte arbitrarily, without following the principles of natural justice issue the termination order. In spite of the complaint made against her, the petitioner was allowed to continue to work as Aganwadi Worker and was paid her honorarium during July 2015 to December 2015.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the termination of the services of the petitioner on 24.05.2016, the respondent No.5 was appointed immediately thereafter, on 27.