IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 16 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 14524 of 2021 SMT RAJKUMARI YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shyam Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated

31.08.2016, passed by respondent no.4 whereby she was dismissed from the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker. She has also challenged the order, dated 12.01.2018 & 27.05.2019, passed by respondent no.3 & 2 respectively, whereby her appeal and second appeal has been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Mini Anganwadi Worker for Atwai Anganwadi Centre at Women & Child Development Project Pohri, District Shivpuri vide order, dated 13.11.2019. She was dismissed from service by respondent no.4 vide order, dated 31.08.2016, on the ground that she has failed to properly implement the Govt. Schemes, she was not residing in village Atwai, she was not found present in centre whenever inspection was made by Project Officer and further that the villagers and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat have also made complaints against the petitioner. Before passing impugned order, she was served with show cause notice which was not replied by petitioner. 3. The dismissal order was challenged by petitioner before respondent no.3 by filing appeal which came to be dismissed vide order, dated 12.01.2018. Further, second appeal filed by petitioner before respondent no.2 also got dismissed vide order, dated 27.05.2019. The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner on 05.08.2021.

4. It is also gathered from records that the respondents issued fresh advertisement on 25.06.2021 for filling up the post held by petitioner. The fate of this advertisement is not brought on record by either of the parties. However, it is not likely that the post shall be kept vacant for so long and in all probability the post must have been filled up.

5. Challenging the impugned action, the learned counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner was given a show cause notice on 28.08.2016 and the impugned order was passed on 31.08.2016. It is his submission that the petitioner was given only two days to reply to show cause notice which itself is violating principles of natural justice. The learned counsel also submitted that when the show cause notice was issued to her and the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was pregnant and she gave birth to a child on 05.10.2016. He thus submitted that the petitioner was not in a position to give her reply. The learned counsel thus prayed for setting aside of impugned orders and for reinstatement of petitioner with consequential benefits.

6 . On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned action of the respondents. At the outset he raised an objection of delay and laches in filing the present writ petition and submitted that the petition has been filed after delay of more than two years and the petition was filed only when the respondents initiated fresh process for filling up the post. He further submitted that the petitioner has been continuously negligent in performance of her duty and therefore, show cause notices were given to her from time to time right from the year 2012 till passing of impugned order. It is his submission that the petitioner was not residing in the village which is a mandatory condition for appointment on the post. He also argued that the petitioner failed to perform her duty inasmuch as the benefit of Govt. Schemes was not given to villagers. The complaints were also received against the petitioner from villagers and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. He thus submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Considered the arguments and perused the records.

8. The objection raised by respondents’ counsel reg