Smt. Shradda Sonkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3413 MP

                                                      1
                          IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                         ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                         WRIT PETITION No. 14108 of 2021

                         BETWEEN:-
                         SM T. SHRADDA SONKAR W/O SHRI RAJESH SONKAR,
                         AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGANWADI
                         WORKER     AGAWADI    CENTRE NO      12 PURVI
                         KARIYAPATHAR MARGHATAI ICDS CITY NO 6 DISTT.
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

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

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

                         3.    THE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR DISTT. JABALPUR
                               MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    THE DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR WOMEN AND
                               CHILD      DEVELOPMENT       DEPARTMENT
                               DISTT.JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER THR
                               WOMEN        AND      CHILD     DEVELOPMENT
                               D E PA R T M E N T DISTT.JABALPUR   (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

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

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 3/1/2023
12:41:51 PM
                                                      2
                         (BY SHRI AJAY SHUKLA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

With the consent finally heard.

2 . This petition assails the order of termination dated 27.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) whereby petitioner an 'Anganwadi' worker was terminated with immediate effect pursuant to a direction issued by the Collector.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 10.07.2021 (Annexure P-4). In turn, petitioner filed her detailed reply on 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, without

holding any enquiry as required as per the scheme dated 10.07.2007 (Clause n)

the petitioner was terminated from service whereas department by another circular dated 11.05.2018 reiterated the need of conducting an enquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 27.07.2021 is communicated to the petitioner by the project officer but decision-making authority was Collector and, therefore, petitioner does not have the remedy to prefer an appeal.

5. The impugned order shows that petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was referred but without assigning iota of reason as to why said reply is not trustworthy, petitioner was terminated from service. This violates principles of natural justice.

6 . Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submits that petitioner could have approached the Collector by preferring an appeal. He submits that the reply of petitioner was considered in the punishment order dated 27.07.2021.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 3/1/2023 12:41:51 PM

7. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

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 a t 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

Signature Not Verified Court in M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 3/1/2023 12:41:51 PM

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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 3/1/2023 12:41:51 PM

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.

13. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE HK

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 3/1/2023 12:41:51 PM