Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Shradda Kori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023

Author: Sujoy Paul

Bench: Sujoy Paul

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 14176 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SMT. SHRADDA KORI W/O SHRI ANIL KORI, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGANWADI WORKER,
AGANWADI CENTRE NO. 03, JHINNA MOHALLA, ICDS
CITY NO.6, DISTT. JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN DUBEY - ADVOCATE )

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD
DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE DIRECTOR, WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTORATE
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE COLLECTOR JAB ALPUR DISTT.JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR WOMEN & CHILD
DEVELOPM ENT JABALPUR DIVISION (MADHYA
PRADESH)

5. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISTT.JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICE CITY NO.6. DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 12/7/2023
5:11:38 PM
2
WRIT PETITION No. 14069 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
PREM LATA MEHRA W/O SHRI DILIP MEHRA, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UPPER ANGANWADI
ANGANWADI KENDRA 1 0 , ICDS NO 6, JABALPUR
(TERMINATED), R/O B EHIN D VIDYAPEETH SCHOOL
BHANTALAIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JAI SHUKLA- ADVODATE)

AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. PRINCIPAL
SECR ETARY DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT BHOPAL MP DISTT.
BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER JABALPUR DIVISION JABALPUR
DIVISION (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. C O L L E C T O R J A B A L P U R DISTT. JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH).

4. DISTTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER, WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS URBAN NO.6,
JABABALPUR DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

WRIT PETITION No. 15381 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SMT. SUREKHA RATHOR, W/O SHRI MAHENDRA
RATHOR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGANWADI KARYAKARTA, R/O H.NO. 136, KHATIK
MOHALLA, WARD DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
Signature Not Verified
(BY SHRI AJITESH TIWARI - ADVOCATE )
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 12/7/2023
5:11:38 PM
3

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR DIVISION
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

5. DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER, WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ICDS
URBAN NO. 4, DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

WRIT PETITION No. 15383 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SMT. SHIVANSHI THAKUR, W/O LATE SHRI HARRAN
SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGANWADI KARYAKARTA, R/O H.NO. 691 BADI
KHEMRAI DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJITESH TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF WOMEN
AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR DIVISION DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. C O L L E C T O R J A B A L P U R DISTT. JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 12/7/2023
5:11:38 PM
4
4. DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ICDS
URBAN NO. 4, DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

WRIT PETITION No. 15385 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SMT. PINKY KASHYAP, W/O SHRI MUKESH KASHYAP,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O ARVIND WARD, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.P. PATHAK - ADVOCATE )

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WOMEN
AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER JABALPUR DIVISION JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

5. DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ICDS
URBAN NO.4, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

WRIT PETITION No. 15389 of 2021

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 12/7/2023
5:11:38 PM
5

BETWEEN:-

SMT. RANJANA SHRIVASTAV, W/O SHRI SURESH
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R /O H.NO. 331,
BEOHARBAGH DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJITESH TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WOMEN
AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER JABALPUR DIVISION
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. COLLECTOR JABALPUR DISTT.JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ICDS
URBAN NO. 4, DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

WRIT PETITION No. 15427 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SMT. SEETA PARIHAR, W/O SHRI VIJAY BAHADUR
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ANGANWADI WORKER, CENTRE NO.53, (URBAN
NO.06), ICDS, R/O H.NO. 653 BABA WARD, NEAR
HANUMAN HOTEL, LALMATI, JABALPUR, DISTT.
JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHAILESH TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 12/7/2023
5:11:38 PM
6
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE DIRECTOR, WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIJAYA RAJA
VATSALYA BHAWAN, 28-A ARERA HILLS,
BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE COLLECTOR JAB ALPUR DISTT.JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER, WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD
D EVELO PM EN T P R O J E C T URBAN NO. 6
JABALPUR DISTT.JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. STATION POLICE OFFICER JABALPUR POLICE
STATION ADHARTAL DISTT.JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )

This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

With the consent, finally heard.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of the question involved, the matters were decided by comon order.

3. The facts are taken from W.P. No.14176 of 2021.

4. The petitoner, an Aganwadi worker was served with a show cause notice dated 10.7.2021. The petitoner filed reply and submitted her defence on merits. The Project Officer passed the impugned order of termination dated 27.7.2021 by holding that the facts, reply, record and enquiry report show that

the petitioner has committed serious negligence and, therefore, her services are

liable to be terminated. The petitoner was accordingly terminated from services.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the relevant scheme provides that an enquiry must be conducted in a case of misconduct. No enquiry has been conducted by permitting the petitioner to participate in the same. No reasons are assigned as to why the defence taken in the reply did not suit the disciplinary authority. This court in similar matter, W.P. No.14108 of 2021 (Smt. Shradda Sonkar Vs. State of M.P. and others) has set aside the similar termination order.

6. Learned Government Counsel opposed the prayer on the basis of reply.

7. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is not in dispute that as per the scheme relating to Aganwadi Worker, in a case of misconduct, an enquiry must be conducted before imposing the punishment. It goes without saying that prodeeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and, therefore minimum expectation is that in final order also reasons must be assigned to show application of mind and also to show as to why the defence was not found to be trustworthy. Curtains on this issue was drawn by this court in the case of Smt. Shradda Sonkar (supra). The relevant portion reads as under :-

"9. The first objection of learned Government Advocate is regarding remedy of appeal. I find substance in the argument of Shri Dubey that the impugned order clearly mentions that show cause was issued to the petitioner at the instance of learned Collector and in the bottom of order dated 27.07.2021, it was clearly mentioned that it is 'ordered' by the Collector. Thus, remedy of appeal was not available to the petitioner.

1 0 . The scheme mentioned hereinabove makes it clear that in case of misconduct, an enquiry needs to be conducted even in cases of the 'Anganwadi' worker. This point is no more res integra in view of various judgments passed by this Court. Some of them are filed with the petition such as Women and Child Development vs. Mrs. Sunita Joshi (W.A. No.586 of 2020), Smt. Shakun Pandey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No.22746 of 2017) and Smt. Savita Jharbade vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No.2453 of 2011). The Supreme Court in 2014 AIR SCW 1611 (Nisha Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others) took the similar view. 1 1 . This Court is basically obliged to examine the decision-making process adopted by the respondents. A careful scrutiny of said process shows that petitioner although was served with a show cause notice and her reply was obtained, in the final order there is only a mention about filing of reply by the petitioner and then authority jumped to the 'conclusion' that petitioner's reply is not satisfactory. Why petitioner's reply was not found to be satisfactory, the impugned order is silent. The reasons are held to be heartbeats of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The apex Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial function/order. The relevant portion reads as under:-

47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even i n administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even

administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f . Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

(Emphasis supplied)

12. If impugned order is tested on the anvil of litmus test laid down in Kranti Associates (supra), it cannot sustain judicial scrutiny for the simple reason the order is passed

without assigning any reason whatsoever. Reason relating to the defence of the petitioner by mentioning as to why petitioner's defence/reply did not suit the competent authority. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to take a decision in accordance with law and scheme from the stage after reply of petitioner is received. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition."

9. The impugned orders of termination in all these case cannot sustain judicial scrutiny because same are passed without holding any enquiry and same do not show any application of mind.

10. Resultantly, all the termination orders are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the employer to proceed in accordance with law by taking into account the scheme. They may proceed against the petitoners after the stage from reply of petitioners is received.