IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5025 of 2017 RITA YADAV Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

“1. That, the impugned order dated 12/07/2017 Vide as annexure P/1 passed by the respondent no.5 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.

2. That, the petitioner be reinstated on the aforementioned post with retrospective effect with full backwages.

3. That, interest @ 12% may also be awarded on the claimed amount of backwages.

4. That, any other relief may be granted which this hon'ble court deems fit.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Aanganwadi Worker at Aanganwadi centre-Kankarkhedi Khurd, Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.) by order dated 31/01/2006. On 11/7/2017, when respondent no.3 visited the Aanganwadi centre- Kankarkhedi khurd, Sironj, Dist.- Vidisha (M.P.) by way of surprise inspection at about 9:35 AM, then it was found that petitioner was not present at the centre and the centre was also closed. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that due to delay of her bus she got late by 10 minutes and could not remain present at the Aanganwadi Centre in time. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that thereafter without giving any show-cause notice, without giving any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any regular departmental enquiry, the services of petitioner were terminated by stigmatic order dated 12.07.2017 (Annexure P-1).

3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supports the order impugned and submits that petitioner was not present on duty and the said center was found closed at the time of inspection i.e. on 11.07.2017. Thereafter, the Joint Director and other officers asked the local people. On which, the local people apprised the Joint Director that the said center used to close, therefore, the benefits of schemes which were made for poor villagers and children were not rendered to them. The villagers further apprised that petitioner did not belong to said village and she was living at Sironj District Vidisha M.P. Learned counsel for State further submits that Sector Supervisor had given a notice to petitioner on 10.06.2017 regarding said irregularities. It is submitted that petitioner filed an application and admitted that she did not remain present in time on duty. It is further submitted that as per Clause C-6 of policy dated 10.07.2007 petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order but she did not avail the said remedy of filing appeal and directly filed the present petition. On these premised submissions, learned counsel for respondent/State supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of instant petition.

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

5. The policy dated 10.07.2007 (Annexure P/4), issued by the State Government, provides for procedure for removal of Aanganwadi Worker from services, the relevant of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

**n& vkaxuokM +h 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 fuogZ u 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 nrs s gq, t‚p esa nks"kh ik;s tku s ij in ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼2½ ;fn lg;ksfxuh ekr` lfefr fdlh dk;ZdrkZ @ lgkf;dk ds dk;Z ls larq"V ugh gS rks i`Fkd lg;ksfxuh ekr` lfefr bl vk'k; dk çLrko mi;qä dkj.k n'kkZrs gq, cSBd esa çLrqr djsxh ,oa cSBd esa çLrko cgqer ls