Gujarat High Court
Khimiben Mukeshbhai Roshiya vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9050 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
=============================================
KHIMIBEN MUKESHBHAI ROSHIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SIDDHARTH RAMI, AGP for Respondent No.1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 17/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP, waives service of Rule for respondent No.1-State and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of Rule for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
1.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. Heard Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the respondent - State.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to Admit this Special Civil Application;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of Mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned termination order dated 10-03-2022 and thereby directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits with 12% interest in the interest of justice.
(C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 10-03-2022 in the interest of justice.
(D) Award any such other and further relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
(E) Award the cost of this Special Civil Application."
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :
4. Mr.Ghavariya, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the services of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker were terminated by respondent No.3 vide its impugned order dated 10.03.2022 without observing the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker by due process of law in the year 2010 and had an unblemished career until an FIR came to be registered against her on 04.02.2022 at Mithapur Police Station, District Devbhumi Dwarka. It is further submitted that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby the same may be Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in service.
4.1 Mr. Ghavariya, learned advocate, would further submit that respondent No.3 has erroneously observed that since there is an FIR registered against the petitioner and she was behind bars for more than 48 hours, her service is deemed to have been terminated. It is submitted that as per the rules of procedure and as per Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, even if any Government servant is arrested and remains in jail for more than 48 hours, in such circumstances also, at best, such an employee can be suspended and cannot be straightaway dismissed from service.
4.2 It is submitted that respondent No.3 was informed about the registration of the FIR by the petitioner herself while reporting for duty and as such, nothing has been suppressed from the respondent authority by the petitioner and in that view of the matter also, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing and the departmental inquiry.
4.3 To buttress his argument, Mr. Ghavariya, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the following judgment:
(i) Judgment of this Court dated 10.03.2026 rendered in the case of Raj Hiteshkumar Patel, Town Planner Mehsana Municipality vs. State of Gujarat, being Special Civil Application N.9380 of 2021.Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
(ii) Judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 04.12.2023 in the case of Vaghela Baluben Govindbhai vs. Director of Primary Education and others, being Special Civil Application No.12889 of 2016.
4.4 Making the above submissions, Mr.Ghavariya, learned advocate for the petitioner would urge this Court to allow this petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS :
5. Per contra, Mr. Munshaw for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has vehemently opposed this petition contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker, and it is considered as an honorary service, unlike the services rendered by a Government servant. It is submitted that the service of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker is governed by the Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019, wherein no procedure envisaged to give any prior notice to the petitioner before termination and or to hold any departmental inquiry. Since the service of Anganwadi Worker is honorary in nature, there is no requirement in law to hold any inquiry before passing order of termination.
5.1 It is submitted that as per Clause 15.4 of the aforesaid Resolution, in a case where any Anganwadi Worker remains in jail for more than 48 hours in connection with any serious crime, his/her honorary services are required to be discontinued by the authority. It is further submitted that the FIR came to be registered against the petitioner at Mithapur Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined Police Station on 04.02.2022 in relation to serious offences under Sections 143, 323, 304 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act and upon receipt of the copy of the FIR from the police station concerned and as it is not in dispute that the petitioner remained in jail from 08.02.2022 to 03.03.2022, as per the aforesaid Resolution, the impugned order came to be passed which may not be disturbed by this Court.
5.2 Lastly, it is submitted that as per the aforesaid Resolution, in a case like the present one, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner before terminating her services.
5.3 Mr. Rami, learned AGP, would adopt the arguments canvassed by Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5.4 Making the above submissions, learned advocates for the respondents would urge this Court to dismiss this petition.
6. No other or further submissions have been advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
ANALYSIS :
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in 2010. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the FIR dated Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined 04.02.2022 registered at Mithapur Police Station in connection with the offences under Sections 143, 323, 304 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. Further, the petitioner herself declared before respondent No.3 that in connection with the aforesaid FIR, she remained in judicial custody from 08.02.2022 to 03.03.2022.
8. It is true that as per Clause 15.4 of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019, in a case where any Anganwadi Worker remains in jail for more than 48 hours in connection with a serious crime, the honorary service of the Anganwadi Worker can be discontinued by passing an appropriate order. It is undisputed that before passing the impugned order dated 10.03.2022 by respondent No.3, no opportunity of hearing was granted in favour of the petitioner.
9. It is now a settled legal position that before passing any order of termination by an employer being the State, the principles of natural justice are required to be observed. It is well settled that in the case of a regular employee and/or a contractual employee, when the termination is stigmatic in nature or otherwise, the observance of the principles of natural justice is a sine qua non. In a given case, a full-fledged departmental inquiry is mandatory as per the rules before passing order of termination.
10. It is equally true that as per the aforesaid Resolution, there is no such inquiry contemplated in the case of Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined termination of an Anganwadi Worker, as the services of an Anganwadi Worker are considered as honorary; at the same time, in the case of honorary services also, it cannot be gainsaid that the respondent authority, being the State, cannot terminate the services without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner that too without holding inquiry. I am not at all impressed with any submissions made by learned advocate for respondents.
10.1 The issue germane to the matter is no longer remain res integra and is not required to be further discussed. The issue involved is succinctly discussed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria, his lordship then was) in the case of Vaghela Baluben Govindbhai (supra), wherein it was observed and held thus:
"[6] The only contention which could be raised by learned advocate for the respondent was based on the condition incorporated in the appointment order of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner who was appointed as Anganwadi worker was not a government servant and that what she was paid was only an honorarium.
6.1 The submission could hardly be countenanced inasmuch as the conditions viewing the appointee as appointed on honorarium could be said to be only a facade. The appointment order reflects that the appointment of the petitioner was pursuant to the interview by interview committee. Undoubtedly the relationship of employer an employee was created, once the respondent authorities appointed the petitioner on the post. The attempt on part of the respondents to disown the employment of the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid condition, is not permissible. The petitioner was in public employment appointed by the respondent authorities which are 'state'. In that view, the petitioner would be entitled to all the rights available in public employment in terms of the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The order of termination, as already stated evidently stigmatic in nature.
6.2 Learned advocate for the respondent was also at his receiving end when asked whether any charge-sheet was issued and departmental inquiry was conducted.
6.3 As held by the Division Bench of this court in Chetan Rajgor (supra) being mere issuance of notice would not suffice when the order is stigmatic. It has to be preceded with full-fledged inquiry. The principles laid down in the decision of the Chetan Rajgor (supra) and confirmed by the Division Bench, would apply.
6.4 In that view, the impugned order dated 14.3.2016 terminating the services of the petitioner is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated on the post which she was given appointment.
6.5 As far as the payment of salary for the intervening period is concerned, the petitioner shall not be paid any amount as the principle of 'no work, no pay' would apply."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In light of the aforesaid observations and decision cited supra, since there was neither any opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner nor inquiry held by respondent No.3 before terminating petitioner's service vide its impugned order dated 10.03.2022, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside as it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in all respect.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 10.03.2022 is unsustainable in law as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9050/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined order dated 10.03.2022 passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed and set aside.
12.1 Consequently, the respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner in the service as an Anganwadi Worker, with continuity of service, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12.2 Nonetheless, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is not entitled to receive any back wages from the date of her termination until her reinstatement.
13. It is open to the respondents to follow due procedure of law, as discussed above, if it proposes to initiate any action regarding termination of the petitioner's services.
14. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, the present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:32:51 IST 2026