Kansa vs State of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 584

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(MP) 584

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.C. Sharma, J.
Kansa (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No.2258, 2305, 2337, 2404, 2407, 2415, 2523, 2529, 2530, 2532, 2535, 2551, 2578, 2403, 2405, 2463, 2526, 2533, 2547, 2548, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2554, 2555, 2556, 2558, 2559, 2560, 2561, 2564, 2565, 2568, 2569, 2579, 2580, 2581, 2582, 2583, 2824 and 2825 of 2015(S) (Indore); Decided on 18.6.2015.

Advocates:
Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar with Rituraj Bhatnagar and
Prasanna R. Bhatnagar for petitioner.

Headnote:(1) Anganwadi Worker and Assistants, Selection and Appointment Amended Directions, 2007 (M.P.) -- termination of Anganwadi worker -- no notice given and no enquiry conducted against petitioner -- policy dated 10.7.2007 deals with appointment as well as removal of Anganwadi worker -- no such procedure followed by employer -- respondents violated principles of natural justice and fair play -- petitioner not committed any misconduct and serving with department without any blemish -- impugned order quashed -- petition allowed -- petitioner shall be entitled for wages and all consequential benefits -- all connected writ petitions allowed -- respondents are directed to ensure payment of arrears of salary.
       Held : The aforesaid policy deals with the appointment as well as removal of the Aanganwadi worker. In the present case, no such procedure has been followed by the respondents and no enquiry with the participation of the petitioner was conducted by the employer. The employer has even failed before this Court to establish that they have issued notice to the petitioner. The respondents have violated the principles of natural justice and fair play.
       (2) Constitution of India -- Arts.226, 14 and 21 -- principles of natural justice signify basic minimum fair procedure which must be followed while exercising decision making powers -- these are applicable in totality to administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings -- natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice -- cost will be paid by resopondents -- State shall be free to recover cost by following due process of law, after affording opportunity of hearing -- all connected petitions allowed. AIR 2009 SC 2375 and AIR 1991 SC 101 followed. [Paras 11, 12 & 14
        ¼1½ vk¡xuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ,oa lgkf;dkvksa ds p;u,oa fu;qfDr la'kksf/kr funs'k] 2007 ¼e-iz-½ && vk¡xuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ dh lsok lekfIr && ;kph dks lwpuk ugha nh xbZ rFkk mlds fo#) dksbZ tk¡p lapkfyr ugha dh xbZ && ikfylh fnukad 10-7-2007 vk¡xuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ dh fu;qfDr ds lkFk&lkFk mls gVk, tkus ds fo"k; esa gS && fu;kstd }kjk,slh izfØ;k vuqlfjr ugha dh xbZ && izR;FkhZx.k us uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa rFkk mfpr dk;Z djus dk vfrØe.k fd;k && ;kph us dksbZ vopkj dkfjr ugha fd;k rFkk fcuk fdlh =qfV ds foHkkx dks lsok,a ns jgh gS && vk{ksfir vkns'k vfHk[kafMr fd;k x;k && ;kfpdk eatwj && ;kph etnwjh rFkk lHkh ikfj.kkfed ykHkksa dk gdnkj gksxk && lHkh lacaf/kr fjV ;kfpdk,a eatwj dh xbZ && izR;FkhZx.k dks osru ds cdk;k dk lanÙk djuk lqfuf'pr djus ds fy, funsf'kr fd;k x;kA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoZdfFkr ikfylh vk¡xuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ dh fu;qfDr rFkk mls gVk, tkus ds fo"k; esa gSA orZeku ekeys esa izR;FkhZx.k }kjk,slh dksbZ izfØ;k vuqlfjr ugha dh xbZ rFkk fu;kstd }kjk ;kph ds Hkkx ysus ds lkFk dksbZ tk¡p lapkfyr ugha dh xbZA fu;kstd Hkh bl U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g LFkkfir djus esa vlQy gqvk fd mUgksaus ;kph dks lwpuk tkjh dhA izR;FkhZx.k us uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa rFkk mfpr dk;Z djus dk vfrØe.k fd;kA

       ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226] 14 rFkk 21 && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar lkèkkj.k :i ls vk/kkjh U;wure mfpr izfØ;k gS ftldk fofu'p; djus dh 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djrs le; vuqlj.k djuk pkfg, && ;s iz'kklfud rFkk U;kf;d&dYi dk;Zokgh esa laiw.kZ :i ls ykxw gS && uSlfxZd U;k;] ?kksj vU;k; gksus dh jksdFkke gS && [kpZ izR;FkhZx.k }kjk lanÙk fd;k tk,xk && jkT; lquokbZ dk volj nsus ds ckn fof/k dh lE;d~ izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k djrs gq, [kpZ olwy djus ds fy, Lora= gksxk && lHkh lacaf/kr ;kfpdk,a eatwjA, vkb vkj 2009,l lh 2375 rFkk, vkb vkj 1991,l lh 101 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11] 12,oa 14

ORDER

1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.2258/2015 are narrated hereunder.

2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2015 passed by the Project Officer, ICDS, Jhabua by which the services of the petitioner have been put to an end. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a resident of Tribal Village Aamli Phaliya, District Jhabua and she was posted at Aanganwadi Centre in the same village. She was appointed on 11.2.2008. She has undergone various trainings conducted by the Department from time to time and there was no complaint of any kind against the petitioner except the impugned termination order. The contention of the petitioner is that the her services have been put to an end by stating that she is residing at village Khagjhar and based upon the aforesaid allegation, her services have been put to an end. The petitioner has also stated that as many as 84 identically placed Aanganwadi workers who were continuing with the Department for more than two decades have been thrown out by passing a cyclostyle order. It has also been stated that in the impugned order dated 9.3.2015, the Project Officer has left written the name of the village by Pen at two places and similar identical orders have been passed in 84 cases. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a policy issued by the State Government for appointment of Aanganwadi workers dated 10.7.2007 and the same provides for a detailed procedure for terminating an Aanganwadi worker. It has been categorically stated that at no point of time any enquiry took place in the matter and the petitioner has been thrown out of the job in a most mechanical manner by the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 9.3.2015 with all consequential benefits.

3. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and it has been filed under the signatures of the same officer who has issued the termination order and it has been stated that the petitioner was residing at a distance of about 5 kms. from the place of posting. The respondents have stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

4. The respondents have stated that they have issued a show cause notice and they have inclosed a show cause notice at page 90. The aforesaid show cause notice does not relates to the petitioner. The respondents have also stated that they have received instructions from the higher authorities to issue instructions to all Aanganwadi worker to reside at their place of posting. The respondents have enclosed letter dated 10.9.2014 by which the Collectors were directed to issue instructions to Aanganwadi workers and other employees to reside at their place of posting. The aforesaid letter which is also on record makes it very clear that opportunities were to be granted to Aanganwadi workers by issuing notices, however, no such notices are on record as were required to be given to Aanganwadi worker vide letter dated 10.9.2014. Respondents have stated that they have conducted a fact finding enquiry and as the petitioner was not residing at the place of posting, they have passed the impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is continuing with the Department without any blemish since 11.8.2008. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry with participation of the petitioner. No show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor notices as required vide letter dated 10.9.2014 have been filed by the respondents along with the return. The respondents have not taken care to file notice, if any, issued by the