The principles of natural justice do not always mandate a hearing when termination is justified by unsatisfactory performance and complaints against an employee.

Order :

Hirdesh, J.

1. The instant intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 20-01-2025 passed by learned writ Court in Writ Petition No. 7751 of 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant-petitioner therein has been dismissed.

2. It is contended on behalf of appellant that in pursuance of appointment order dated 20-10-2009, appellant was initially appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker in Village Amrod Baddu and vide order dated 29-10-2015, the services of appellant were terminated on the basis of various complaints on CM helpline without affording any opportunity of hearing or without conducting any enquiry. Relying on the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Seema vs. State of MP and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online MP 5887 and State of MP and Others vs. Smt. Nirmala Rawat , decided on 8th of April, 2022 in Writ Appeal No. 742 of 2020, it is further contended that as per Rule/Policy framed by MP Government, Department of Women and Child Development, dated 10th of July, 2007, if Anganwadi Worker is found negligent in discharging her duties and responsibilities, then the Project Officer of Women and Child Development may give an opportunity of hearing to Anganwadi Worker and if she is found guilty in the enquiry/investigation, she may be removed/terminated from the post. Thus, there is clear violation of principle of natural justice as well as fundamental and statutory rights of appellant. The learned Single Judge did not consider the said aspect, ignoring the Policy/Rule and dismissed the writ petition of appellant in the light of the judgment passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Rajput Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 28th of July, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 847 of 2022 . Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for State opposed the contentions of appellant. It is submitted that on the basis of various complaints made by complainants/villagers on CM Helpline, at the time of inspection, Anganwadi Centre run by appellant was found closed. Various irregularities were found in discharge of duties by appellant. Despite giving various warnings to appellant and giving adequate opportunities, she did not improve her work. So far as contention of appellant that Anganwadi Centre has been shifted to another place because of condition of Anganwadi Centre was not good is concerned, neither any record was maintained by her properly nor any information was furnished in this regard to any authority or Project Officer. Appointment of appellant has been made on temporary basis and a detailed enquiry was not required. As per Para-7 of appointment order dated 20-10-2009, the appointment of Anganwadi Worker can be terminated without giving any notice if her work and behaviour is not found satisfactory or if given instructions are violated or any irregularity is found. Even otherwise, appellant has not availed any remedy of appeal before the Collector under the administrative instructions and guidelines issued from time to time. A show-cause notice was issued on 26-09-2014 (Annexure R-1 therein) with a direction to the appellant to present in the Office within three days in enquiry proceedings and submit her reply as to why action for removal her from service be not taken and a last warning was al