Gujarat High Court
Adarsh Gujarat Anganwadi Union vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25469/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.25469 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
=========================================
ADARSH GUJARAT ANGANWADI UNION & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR NINAD P SHAH for
the Petitioners.
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
MR HS MUNSHAW for the Respondent No.4.
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent Nos.3,5
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent No.2
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 05/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal today itself. Hence, Rule. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader as well as learned advocate Mr. H. S.
Munshaw waive service of rule on behalf of respective respondents.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged
the order of termination dated 30.6.2022 passed by the Child
Development Scheme Officer, Dang, Subir Ghatak terminating the
services of the petitioner No.2 by relieving of her duty and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25469/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
petitioners have further prayed to reinstate the petitioner No.2 at
her original post with all consequential benefits including back-
wages and continuity of service.
3. The facts stated by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shalin
Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ninad P. Shah are as
under :-
3.1 The petitioner No.2 came to be appointed as
Anganwadi Worker in the Daher-1, Anganwadi Center vide order
dated 18.7.2013 passed by the Child Development Scheme Officer,
Ghatak 1, Dang - Ahwa on temporary basis.
3.2 On 11.2.2022, Mukhiya Sevika, Child Development
Scheme, Taluka Panchayat Subir, Ghatak issued notice to
petitioner No.2 with regard to her ineffectiveness and carelessness
towards her service and 16 accusations were levelled against
petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.2 filed reply on 14.2.2022. After
putting 11 years of service as Anganwadi Worker, by order dated
30.6.2022, the Child Development Scheme Officer, Dang, Subir
Ghatak terminated the services of the petitioner No.2 w.e.f.
30.6.2022 after office hours by relieving her from duty. The said
order states that on 30.06.2022, the District Development Officer,
Dang-Ahwa; Programme Officer, Dang-Ahwa and In-charge
C.D.P.O, Subir visited Anganwadi Center Daher- 1 and during the
said visit they found that register is incomplete since last 3 months;
primary education was not being imparted and pre-school kit were
also not present in the center; out of 73 children from the age
group of 3 to 6 years only 13 were present (less than 50%
attendance); as per the information given by Anganwadi helper
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25469/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
Daher -1, chickpea and peanuts were not used in this month and
children were not given fruits; snacks were not given as per the
menu; the lady worker who was present at the anganwadi center
was not giving reply to queries asked by the officers and even after
issuance of notices dated 25.11.2021 and 11.02.2022 by the
Mukhiya Sevika, there has been no improvement in the work and
thus the Anganwadi Worker Daher -1 needs to be relived of her
duty.
4. Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the petitioner relied upon
the latest decision of this Court dated 04-10.12.2024 in case of
Rakeshkumar Bhursingbhai Katara V/s. State of Gujarat in
Special Civil Application No. 22588 of 2022 and allied
matters and submitted that while allowing the petitions of those
petitioners, this Court has elaborately considered the decision of
this Court right from the decision in the case of State of Guajrat
V/s. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor dated 24.07.2020 passed in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 and other decisions including the
latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Swati
Priyadarshini V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in
2024 SCC Online SC 2139 and therefore, present case is squarely
covered by the above decision and therefore, the petitioner's
termination order is bad in law and the same is deserves to be
quashed and set aside and the petitioner is required to be
reinstated on her original post.
5. Learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw appearing for
respondent No.4 submits that the impugned termination order
cannot be said to be a stigmatic order as the said order indicates
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25469/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
that the petitioner failed to improve her performance despite
numerous chances given to her and, therefore, as the petitioner
No.2's services were found to be dis-satisfactory, in the order only
instances are stated about the dis-satisfactory service of the
petitioner and that is a statement of fact which would not make the
order as stigmatic.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw relied upon decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Gupta v. S. N.
B. National Centre, Basic Sciences, 2006 (4) SCC 469, more
particularly paragraphs 12, 14 and 17 and submitted that by
applying the test of stigmatic, the order cannot be said to be
stigmatic and the petitioner is relieved from her services and,
therefore, the impugned order also cannot be said to be punitive in
nature and as the petitioner was on contractual employment, the
respondent No.4 was well within his rights to terminate the
services of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
6. Learned AGP submitted that though the State is a
formal party, prima facie, the reading of the impugned order
cannot be said to be stigmatic one and, therefore, the petition may
be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the
record, I found that the order of termination dated 30.6.2022
indicates that the District Development Officer, Dang-Ahwa;
Programme Officer, Dang-Ahwa and In-charge C.D.P.O, Subir
visited Anganwadi Center Daher- 1 and during the said visit they
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25469/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
found that register is incomplete since last 3 months; primary
education was not being imparted and pre-school kit were also not
present in the center; out of 73 children from the age group of 3 to
6 years only 13 were present (less than 50% attendance); as per
the information given by Anganwadi helper Daher -1, chickpea and
peanuts were not used in this month and children were not given
fruits; snacks were not given as per the menu; the lady worker who
was present at the anganwadi center was not giving reply to
queries asked by the officers and even after issuance of notices
dated 25.11.2021 and 11.02.2022 by the Mukhiya Sevika, there has
been no improvement in the work and thus the Anganwadi Worker
Daher -1 needs to be relived of her duty.
8. In view of the above order, the decision relied upon by
learned advocate Mr. Munshaw is required to be considered. In
the case of Abhijit Gupta v. S. N. B. National Centre, Basic
Sciences (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in
paragraphs 12, 14 and 17 as under :-
"12. It referred to Dipti Prakash banerjee
(supra) and pointed out that in Dipti Prakash
Banerjee (supra), the termination letter expressly
made reference to an earlier letter which had
explicitly referred to all the misconducts of the
employee and a report of an inquiry committee
which had found that the employee was guilty of
misconduct and so the termination was held to be
stigmatic and set aside. Finally, this Court said
that whenever a probationer challenges his
termination the court's first task will be to apply
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25469/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
the test of stigma or the 'form' test. If the order
survives this examination the "substance" of the
termination will have to be found out. What this
Court further observed in para 29 is crucial and
of great relevance :
"Before considering the facts of the case before
us one further, seemingly intractable, area
relating to the first test needs to be cleared viz.
what language in a termination order would
amount to a stigma? Generally speaking when a
probationer's appointment is terminated it means
that the probationer is unfit for the job, whether
by reason of misconduct or ineptitude, whatever
the language used in the termination order may
be. Although strictly speaking the stigma is
implicit in the termination, a simple termination is
not stigmatic. A termination order which
explicitly states what is implicit in every order of
termination of a probationer's appointment, is
also not stigmatic. The decisions cited by the
parties and noted by us earlier, also do not hold
so. In order to amount to a stigma, the order must
be in a language which imputes something over
and above meter unsuitability for the job."
14. The real test to be applied in a situation
where an employee is removed by an innocuous
order of termination is: Is he discharged as
unsuitable or is he punished for his misconduct?
In Allahabad Bank Officers' Association and
another vs. Allahabad Bank and others, (1996) 4
SCC 504, this Court was considering a challenge
to a compulsory retirement and formulated a
practical test to answer the question posed above.
This Court (vide para 17) observed that if the
order of compulsory removal form the service
casts a stigma in the sense that it contains a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25469/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
statement casting aspersion on his conduct or his
character, then it can be treated as an order of
punishment but not if it merely amounts to
highlighting the unsuitability of the employee. As
pointed out in this judgment, expressions like
"want of application", "lack of potential" and
"found not dependable" when made in relation to
the work of the employee would not be sufficient
to attract the charge that they are stigmatic and
intended to dismiss the employee from service.
17. The High Court has carefully considered all
the circumstances placed before it and arrived at
the conclusion that the respondent's work was
under observation during the probationary period
and that he was given repeated opportunities to
improve his performance for which purpose his
probation was extended from time to time. The
fact that the authority did not find him fit for
confirmation was also brought to his notice
several times and yet he was given opportunities
of improving by extending his probationary
service. The High Court has correctly found that
the letter dated 7.4.1998 was not punitive in
nature and stated, albeit in prolix fashion, that
the service of the appellant were unsatisfactory.
The High Court points out, and we agree, that
detailed reference to all other correspondence
was not necessary, but it did not reflect any
malice or bias. Finally, as this Court pointed out
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/25469/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
in P. N. Verma's case (supra) "a termination order
which explicitly states what is implicit in every
order of termination of a probationer's
appointment, does not ipso facto become
stigmatic".
9. The above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, more particularly paragraph 14, would indicate that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if an order of termination
merely amounts to highlighting the unsuitability of the employee,
the same cannot be termed as stigmatic order. In the instant case
also, a perusal of the impugned order wherein it is specifically by
stating the incident stated that the petitioner was given chance to
improve, but she did not improve and, therefore, her services are
terminated would actually express the unsuitability of the
petitioner and, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with
the impugned order of termination and, therefore, the petition is
required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
