IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 19 OF DECEMBER, 2025

WRIT PETITION No. 7550 of 2016

SMT. SUNITA ARYA

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Ms. Ruchi Mishra – Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Shishupal Singh – Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed

seeking the following relief (s):

“It is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to allow the petition and the impugned orders dated 28-07-16 and 18-02-16 passed by the respondent No. 2 & 3 may kindly be

quashed in the |interest of justice.

Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to permit the

petitioner to work as Aganwadi helper of Aganwadi Centre situated at

Ward No. 6-A Tehsil Baroda District Sheopur M.P.

Any other writ order, or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted costs be awarded”

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Helper and discharging her duties with sincerity and full devotion. Petitioner was pregnant, therefore, she applied for grant of maternity leave and respondent No.3 vide order dated 05.08.2015 granted maternity leave of total 180 days from 01.03.2015 to 28.08.2015. After completing the maternity leave, petitioner joined her services on 20.08.2015. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint respondent No.3 abruptly inspected at Aanganwadi Centre on 25.11.2015 and at that time petitioner could not appear due to her illness. It is further submitted that without following procedure prescribed in the policy dated 10.07.2007 services of petitioner have been terminated by respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the removal order dated 18.02.2016 is stigmatic and before issuance of the stigmatic removal order departmental enquiry is necessary. Thereafter, petitioner preferred appeal and the Appellate Authority did not consider the aforesaid aspect and rejected the appeal vide order dated 28.07.2016. Thus, on these premised submissions, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the reliefs sought for may kindly be extended to petitioner by allowing the present petition.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner and supported the order impugned. It is further submitted by him that petitioner was absent from 01.03.2015 to 10.04.2015 without any information and on 25.11.2015 the Project Officer, all of a sudden, inspected the Aanganwadi Centre and found that petitioner was absent and thereafter Project Officer issued letter/show-cause notice on 14.12.2015 but petitioner was not available at home and her grandmother also refused to receive the same. It is further submitted that when petitioner did not come on duty, the warning letter was issued on 29.01.2016. Petitioner submitted reply to the said letter and stated that she was not present on duty due to some reason but no specific reason could be assigned by her in reply. After submitting reply, she again absented herself from duty. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 18.2.2016 has rightly been passed by the Project Officer and the appeal of petitioner has also rightly been rejected by the Appellate Authority.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The policy of the State Government dated 10.07.2007 (Annexure P/4) provides for removal of Aanganwadi Worker from services, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:- n&% vkaxuokMh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls gVkus dh çfØ;k%&

¼1½ ;fn vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk }kjk vkaxuokM+h dsUæ dk lapkyu fu;ekuqlkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS vFkok muds }kjk vius drZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa ykijokgh dh tkrh gS rks ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh@efgyk ,oa cky fodkl ds vU; mPp vf/kdkjh }kjk vkaxuokM+h dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks lquokbZ dk volj nsrs