The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, fair play, and procedural due process in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, especially in cases involving the termination of employment.

ORDER : – The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 7-9-2018, by which respondent No. 2 has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Worker in village- Binoli, Rehsil – Jaora, District – Ratlam for last 20 years. However, without giving an opportunity of hearing and without following procedure as given in the circular dated 10-7-2007, services of the petitioner were terminated. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she has not submitted monthly report in time to the supervisor. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice denying charges of not maintaining records. However, without conducting any enquiry, the impugned order of termination has been passed.

3. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3/the Upper Collector, Ratlam. The Upper Collector dismissed the appeal. Against which, he preferred second appeal before respondent No. 2/the Upper Commissioner, Ujjain which was also dismissed Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the impugned order, no notice or an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the circular dated 10-7-2007 specifically provides that before removing any Aanganwadi Worker, she must have been given an opportunity of hearing and if she found guilty, then only, she can be removed from the post. He further submits that in the present case, the procedure prescribed by the department, has not been followed and therefore, impugned termination order is liable to be quashed and the Appellate Authorities, while passing the impugned order, have not at all considered these grounds.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the order/judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kansa vs. State of M. P. and others, reported in 2015(4) M.P.L.J. 151 as well as the order dated 18-6-2019 passed in W. P. No. 1434/2019, Smt. Nirmala Rawat vs. State of M. P. and others.

5. Respondents have filed their reply and in the reply, they have stated that appropriate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. It is further submitted that notices were issued from time to time to the petitioner and the procedures prescribed in the circular dated 10-7-2007 has been followed and there is no procedure for conducting any departmental enquiry in the circular, because the petitioner is not regular employee. In such circumstances, present petition has no force and deserves to be dismissed accordingly.

6. This Court, while dealing with termination of Aanganwadi Worker in the case of Smt. Kansa vs. State of M. P., reported in 2015(4) M.P.L.J. 151 in paragraphs 9 to 18 has held as under : –

“9. In the aforesaid order only the name of the village has been changed in all 84 cases. The policy dt. 10-7-2007 issued by the State Government provides for a procedure for discontinuing an “Aanganwadi worker” and the same reads as under :

10. 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.

11. In India there is no statute which prescribes the minimum procedure which administrative agencies or quasi judicial bodies must follow while taking decisions which affect the rights of the individuals. Nonetheless, they are bound by the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice signify the basic minimum fa