2026:HHC:4333 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) 88 of 2026 a/w LPA No. 68 of 2026 Date of decision: 25.02.2026 _____________________________________ ___________________ Lalita Devi …..Appellant Versus State of HP & others t …Respondents ________________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________

For the Appellant: Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate.

Fo r the Respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, h Additional Advocate General.

G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

CMP(M) No. 88 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

LPA No. 68 of 2026

2. Challenge in the present appea.l is to the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No. 6988 of 2024, titled as Lalita Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, dated 13.11.2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the order dated 27.06.2024,r terminating her services, for insubordination and indiscipline while working as Anganwadi Worker, was upheld.

3. The reason given by the learned Single Judge for upholding the termination order and rejecting the argument that the punishment of termination of services imposed upon the petitioner was too harsh considering her long service, was that despite the directions to shift the Anganwadi Centre from her home to Mahila Mandal Bhawan and notices having been issued, the Anganwadi Centre had firstly been shifted to the house of her brother-in-law and some sort of agreement had been entered into between them for running Anganwadi Centre there for a period of one year.

4. It was also noticed by the learnePd Single Judge that the husband of the petitioner m.isbehaved with the superior officers of the appellant when an attempt was made to shift the Anganwadi Centre to Mahila Mandal Bhawan and in this regard, an FIR had also been registered by th e respondents. Resultantly, the learned Single Jurdge came to the conclusion that it was not for the petitioner/appellant to decide where the Anganwadi Centre should be located. It being a case of gross insubordination and indiscipline on her part and she having been given ample opportunities in the form of office letters, notices and orders for shifting the Anganwadi Centre to Mahila Mandal Bhawan, but she did not avail the same. Three show cause notices were issued to her directing to shift Anganwadi Centre from her home to Mahila Mandal Bhawan, but she repeatedly disobeyed and defied the orders of the higher Authorities and thus, her services were terminated and, therefore, it was held that no case for interference was made out, as the petitioner exhibited scant regard to the orders of her direct higher officers. She did not maintain either the decorum, dignity of her pPosition or that of her superiors. Thus, the responden.ts were left with no other option, but to terminate her services. It was held that insubordination cannot be taken lightly as it affects hierarchy of position and the chain of command, which in turn, affects working of employer. Thus, it was held thart the termination of the services of the petitioner could not be termed as perverse or disproportionate.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has sought to canvas that since the petitioner was serving as Anganwadi Worker for a long period, therefore, the termination order of her services was not justified.

6. We have gone through the record minutely. Apparently, the Anganwadi Centre was being run firstly in the house of the petitioner/appellant, which is stated to be at some distance at a secluded place and there was