D. Hariparanthaman, J.

The petitioner was working as an Anganwadi worker from 15.12.2006 onwards. She was on medical leave from 14.04.2015 till 11.10.2015. While so, the impugned order was passed by the first respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka. No. 3588 A1/2015 dated 27.10.2015, terminating the petitioner from service on the ground that the petitioner did not turn up to duty after 11.10.2015 when her leave came to end. It is also stated that though she was directed to join duty, she did not join duty. The impugned order refers to G.O.Ms. No. 4, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme Department, dated 09.01.1995. If an Anganwadi worker remains absent for more than six months, according to G.O.Ms. No. 4, such worker could be rightly terminated from service, without any enquiry. Based on G.O.Ms. No. 4, the impugned order is passed.

2. Since the impugned order of dismissal was passed without notice and without holding any enquiry and the same is violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, this Court has taken up the writ petition for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

3. The petitioner has been in service for 9 years. The post of Anganwadi worker is also a civil post. Even assuming that the same is not a civil post, no adverse order having civil consequences could be passed against any person without hearing the said person. It is a well settled principle.

4. The impugned order states that the petitioner applied medical leave from 14.04.2015 to 11.10.2015. It is stated that she did not join duty after expiry of leave on 11.10.2015. If it is so, it has to be taken that the leave was sanctioned for the aforesaid period. Nowhere the impugned order states that the leave was refused.

5. If it is taken that the petitioner was on leave for the period 14.04.2015 to 11.10.2015, then the petitioner cannot be blamed that she remained absent for more than six months. Further the petitioner sought extension of leave from 12.10.2015 to 20.11.2015 and enclosed a medical certificate obtained from the Urban Primary Health Centre at Periyakulam Municipality. In any event, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is willing to report duty.

6. Even if the leave for the period from 14.04.2015 to 11.10.2015 was not sanctioned and the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent, the respondents cannot dismiss the petitioner from service depriving her livelihood in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India without holding any enquiry.

7. G.O.Ms. No. 4 is also produced before this Court. Para 3(M) of G.O.Ms. No. 4 reads as follows:

8. In my view, G.O.Ms. No. 4, permitting the authorities to summarily dismiss the Anganwadi workers for absence 6 months and above, is bad and illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The unauthorised absence for more than 6 months amounts to misconduct and therefore, the authorities are bound to hold an enquiry, before dismissing the employee for the unauthorised absence for more than six months. Hence, I am of the view that the first respondent is not correct in passing the impugned order in simply dismissing the petitioner from service without notice and without hearing and without also holding an enquiry.

9. It is useful to extract the following portion of the Apex Court judgment in M.C.D. v. Praveen Kumar Jain and others reported in (1998) 9 SCC 468:

"4. ...... Unfortunately, for the appellant the impugned order of termination extracted above does not show that it was passed after a departmental enquiry wherein the disciplinary authority was satisfied about the said misconduct. On the contrary, it seeks to terminate the services of Respondent 1 by way of a simple discharge and not by way of any penalty. It is only during the proceedings before the Labour Court that a different stand was taken that it was by way of penalty. This stand was obviously taken by the appellant because the order of simpliciter termination would have remained