Point of Law: Anganwadi Karyakatri - Termination of contract - Failure to discharge her duties as Anganwadi Karyakatri but she was also failed to even provide requisite nutrient food to the children and lactating women.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Petitioner, by means of present writ petition, has sought following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.8.2015 passed by respondent no. 6.

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent concerned not to interfere in the peaceful discharge of duty on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, Anganwari Centre in Village Majhalwara, District Mahoba and any honorarium month to month as when its false due, within stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) to award the cost of petition.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was engaged on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri at Anganwadi Centre in Village Majhalwara, District Mahoba and joined the post on 06.02.1991. According to petitioner she worked sincerely and discharged her duties with all devotion. According to the averments made in writ petition an inspection was conducted of the Anganwadi Centre where petitioner was working wherein not only petitioner was found absent but the Anganwadi Centre was also found to be closed and vide order dated 12.06.2014 the honorarium of petitioner for the month of June, 2014 was withheld till further orders.

3. Petitioner submitted an application dated 13.06.2014 and contended that she was present at the Anganwadi Centre from 8.15 AM to 12.00 Noon on the date of inspection and it was also alleged that on the said date no inspection was conducted. A certificate of Village Praghan was also placed on record that petitioner was working at the New Anganwadi Centre on the date of inspection.

4. Petitioner thereafter also submitted an application on 14.06.2014 alongwith certificate of Village Pradhan. Meanwhile, respondent-District Programme Officer, Mahoba vide order dated 17.10.2014 communicated petitioner that her future honorariums were stopped as petitioner was found absent on inspection and also taking note that earlier absence of petitioner was ignored, still petitioner failed to improve her conduct. Petitioner was required to file reply within three days. Petitioner has also submitted a complaint before Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission, which directed the District Programme Officer to conduct inquiry in the issue. Therefore, an inquiry was conducted and Chief Development Officer, Mahoba vide letter dated 06.12.2014 communicated the District Magistrate, Mahoba that petitioner frequently remained absent at the Anganwadi Centre and despite earlier many warnings, petitioner remained habitual absentee and failed to discharge her duties diligently, therefore, it was stated that no interference is required in the order.

5. The District Programme Officer, Mahoba on 09.02.2015 again issued a show cause notice on the basis of report that on inspection petitioner was found absent at the Anganwadi Centre as well as the food material was also found short and an explanation was sought from petitioner within a week. Petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice. The Chief Development Project Officer, Mahoba after considering the reply of petitioner disengaged the petitioner vide order dated 10.08.2015, who was engaged on the basis of a contract. In the said order the authority concerned after considering the material on record come to conclusion that petitioner neither stayed in the village concerned nor regularly conducted the centre, there was misuse of nutrient food as well as despite repeated warning the conduct of petitioner was not improved and on contrary she tried to pressurize the officers by submitting false applications. The aforesaid order is impugned in the present writ petition.

6. Sri Harish Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that petitioner was working since 1991 and discharged her duties with due diligence and t