ORDER

1. With the consent, finally heard.

2. This petition assails the impugned order dated 27/01/2020 whereby petitioner was terminated from services. The petitioner has also assailed the appellate orders dated 29/07/2020 and 04/12/2020 whereby her appeals were dismissed by learned Additional Collector and the Commissioner.

3. The admitted facts between the parties are that while working as Aaganwadi Worker, petitioner received a show cause notice dated 06/01/2020 wherein it was alleged that petitioner remained absent and accordingly, petitioner was directed to file reply. In turn, petitioner filed reply (Annexure P/5) and took a stand that because of some gynecological problem, she remained absent on 27/12/2019. Dissatisfied with the said reply, the Project Officer by order dated 10/01/2020 decided to deduct 08 days' honorarium of the petitioner and observed that henceforth, if any such misconduct is committed, the petitioner may be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The Project Officer by order dated 27/01/2020 (Annexure P/8) again issued a show cause notice on the strength of a direction issued by the Collector Khandwa to terminate the petitioner and decided to recall the previous order dated 10/01/2020 whereby honorarium was deducted. In turn, petitioner submitted her fresh reply. The Project Officer by order dated 27/01/2020 terminated the petitioner from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged it by filing appeals before the Additional Collector and Commissioner, Revenue Division.

4. Criticising the disciplinary action, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that (i) after having passed the order dated 10/01/2020 whereby honorarium of 08 days was deducted, it was no more open to the respondents to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for the same misconduct. (ii) The order dated 27/01/2020 (Annexure P/8) and consequential proceedings were initiated at the dictate of Collector/appellate authority. Thus, Project Officer worked under dictate and did not apply his independent mind. For this reason alone, the order dated 24/01/2020 and all subsequent proceedings deserve to be set aside.

6. Shri Bajpai, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the basis of reply and submits that the proceedings are in consonance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

7. Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

9. The factual backdrop of the matter shows that when petitioner submitted her reply (Annexure P/5) pursuant to the show cause notice dated 06.01.2020 (Annexure P/4), the competent authority i.e. Project Officer decided to deduct 08 days' honorarium from the petitioner with a clear finding that if henceforth petitioner commits similar misconduct, she may be terminated from service. However, this order dated 10.01.2020 (wrongly mentioned as 10.01.2019 in Annexure P/8) was withdrawn at the dictate of the Collector. The Collector further directed the Project Officer to terminate the services of the petitioner.

10. I find substantial force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that after deciding to deduct 08 days honorarium, it was no more open to the respondents to punish the petitioner by proceeding further. Moreso, when such a decision was taken at the dictate of Collector who is not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. It is profitable to see certain Supreme Court judgments on this point viz. Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of India vs. DG of Civil Aviation (2011) 5 SCC 435 & State of M.P. vs. Sanjay Nagayach (2013) 7 SCC 25 and also the judgment of this Court in Makhano Kori vs. State of M.P. and others 2011 SCC OnLine MP 127 and Dheerendra Pandey vs. State of M.P. 2012 SCC OnLine MP 6096 wherein this Court opined that any such order passed under dictate of higher authority runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and settled principles