Bombay High Court
Smt. Shobha Wd/O Marotrao Ghatol ... vs Prakalpa Adhikari Amravati & ... on 29 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment 1 wp1379.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 2002
Smt. Shobha Wd/o. Marotrao Ghatol,
Aged about 42 years, Occupation: Service,
R/o. At and Post : Wadgaon (Fatepur),
Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Prakalpa Adhikari,
Ekatmik Adiwasi Vikas Prakalpa,
at Dharni, Dist. Amravati.
2. Bal-Vilas Prakalpa Adhikari
Ekatmik Balvikas Seva Yojana,
At : Chikhaldara, Tq.Chikhaldara,
District : Amravati.
3. The Collector,
Amravati District,
Camp : Amravati.
4. Zilla Parisahd, through it's
Chief Executive Officer,
R/o. Camp, Amravati.
5. The State of Maharashtra, through
it's Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri Vinay Dahat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Tajwar Khan A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 3 & 5.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A.HAQ, JJ.
DATED : MAY 29, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 01/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2017 00:39:45 :::
Judgment 2 wp1379.02.odt
JUDGMENT (PER : B.P.Dharmadhikari, J):
1. Heard advocate Shri Dahat for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 and 5. Nobody
appears for other respondents. However, other respondents have filed
return and the respective counsel have invited our attention to it.
2. In present matter, we do not find it necessary to delve
more into the dispute.
3. The petitioner has been removed from her post as
Anganwadi Sevika w.e.f. 02/01/2002 by order dated 2-3rd January,
2002. This Court has admitted the matter but no interim relief came to
be granted.
4. Advocate Shri Dahat submits that the petitioner had been
working as Anganwadi Sevika since prior to 1987 and in the false/
fabricated case holding that the ration meant for use at Anganwadi
Centre was sold in open market she has been victimized. He points out
that there was no departmental enquiry and no opportunity
whatsoever to meet those allegations. According to him, some enquiry
was conducted behind her back and then show cause notice was issued
Judgment 3 wp1379.02.odt
on 30/12/2001 giving time of 24 hours to file reply. The said show
cause notice was also not served upon her and ultimately by the
impugned order she came to be terminated. He, therefore, seeks relief
of continuity and full back wages.
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that
entire action against the petitioner has been taken by her employer
namely respondent No.4 along with respnodent Nos.1 and 2. She,
however, adds that Anganwadi Sevika is not permanent employee and
she works only on honourarium for fixed tenure on contract basis, she,
therefore, claims that in this situation no regular departmental enquiry
was necessary.
6. The petitioner has not produced before us initial order of
appointment. However, record shows the order dated 03/12/1987
which re-appoints the petitioner. The re-appointment is from
Bhilkheda (Manbhang) to Bhilkheda (Gou) Centre. Reason for this re-
appointment is given as "on complaint". Copy of order dated
01/12/1987 shows that the petitioner was warned as a complaint was
made against her by villagers that she was selling ration. It is also
alleged in that notice that she did not employ any attendant but
Judgment 4 wp1379.02.odt
manipulated record and received honourarium for attendant also. It is
alleged that on the date of payment of honourarium she was brinigng
one lady by paying her daily wage of Rs.10/- to show that she was
working as attendant. The said communication also mentions that
show cause notice was served upon her but she failed to submit any
explanation thereto.
7. After this 1987 appointment, the impugned order dated 3 rd
January, 2002 is next adverse material available on record. By this
order she has been removed from the post of Anganwadi Sevika w.e.f.
02/01/2002 i.e. retrospectively. In this order it is mentioned that for
selling ration received under Supplementary Diet Scheme and for
behaving arrogantly with villagers, action was taken. The order,
therefore, definitely casts stigma on her.
8. On 13/12/2001 she was called upon to submit her
explanation. The show cause notice shows that the complaint was
received against her and enquiry was conducted on 04/12/2001. The
record also shows panchnama of about 45 kgs food grains conducted
on 04/12/2001. The show cause notice mentions that 45 kgs rice to be
used at Anganwadi Centre was recovered from the shop where it was
Judgment 5 wp1379.02.odt
displayed for sale. The petitioner was called upon to explain why her
services should not be terminated. She was given time of 24 hours for
submitting reply.
9. The panchnama by which the Child Development Project
Officer took possession of this 45 kgs rice shows that said authority
visited Bhilkheda on 04/12/2001. Police Patil informed him that on
previous day i.e. on 3rd December, 2001 the petitioner had provided 45
kgs. rice for sale to one Manaji Sonya, the Police Patil seized it and
brought it to his house. The Child Development Project Officer has
accordingly submitted report on 18/12/2001 to Additional Collector
and Project Officer, ICDS, Dharni. He has recommended removal of
the petitioner and her assistant. In this report, he does not point out
the show cause notice dated 13/12/2001 or then whether any reply
and defence submitted by the petitioner to it.
10. Though advocate Shri Dahat has raised some other
contentions, in present situation, as termination appears to be in
breach of the principles of natural justice and without giving due
opportunity to the petitioner, we are inclined to permit the respondent
Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to hold fresh proceedings/ fresh enquiry as per law in
Judgment 6 wp1379.02.odt
the matter. Only to facilitate this exercise, we proceed to pass the
following order to meet the ends of justice :
i) The order dated 2/3rd January, 2002 is quashed and set
aside.
ii) The petitioner shall be reinstated in the service but will be
treated to be under suspension.
iii) The respondents shall proceed against her as per law and
complete necessary action within next eight months after
communication of this order to them.
iv) During the period of suspension the petitioner shall be
entitled to receive subsistance allowance @ 50% of her
honourarium/ wages if she co-operates in the enquiry
proceedings.
v) The petitioner has been without any source of income (as
alleged) since her termination, her entitlement to wages /
honourarium for the period for which she was out of
employment depends upon the income of the proceedings
which we have ordered today. Only to enable her to face
those proceedigns we direct respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to
release the honourarium/ wages for the period of two
years to her as advance. The rate of the honourarium/
wages at which she was paid for the month of December,
Judgment 7 wp1379.02.odt
2001 shall be used for the purposes of computing this
amount. This amount shall be released within a period of
two months from today.
vi) The amount so paid shall be appropriated / adjusted
towards her final entitlement which is dependent upon the
outcome of the enquiry, if she is reinstated.
viii) The authority passing final orders in enquiry shall make
necessary arrangeent while appropriating the amount
already received by her towards her other entitlements
like back wages/ honourarium for past period, continuity
etc.
ix) If the petitioner is not reinstated, the amount paid to her
towards the subsistence allowance and as an honourarium
for past two years, shall not be recovered from her.
The petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of. No
costs.
(Z.A.HAQ, J.) (B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
RRaut..
