Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Susheela Rajak vs Pariyojan Adhikari Ekidrit Bal ... on 12 June, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 12th OF JUNE 2023
WRIT PETITION No.18124 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SUSHEELA RAJAK W/O SHRI HARILAL RAJAK,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION ERSTWHILE
AAGANWADI KARYA KARTA, KENDRA RAJI BUDHAR
(SECTOR SARAS), R/O WARD NO.4, SHAHPURA, TAHSIL
SHAHPURA, DISTRICT DINDORI (MP)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NIKHIL TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PARIYOJNA ADHIKARI EKIKRIT BAL VIKAS
PARIYOJNA, DINDORI, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
DINDORI (MP).
2. MUKHYA KARYAPALAN ADHIKARI, JANPAD
PANCHAYAT, DINDORI, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
DINDORI (MP).
3. SMT. SHANTI MARKO W/O SHRI CHHATRU
SINGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, AAGANWADI
CENTRE RANI BUDHAR, GRAM PANCHAYAT
SARASTAL, DINDORI (MP)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 BY SHRI TAPAN BATHRE - PANEL LAWYER)
..............................................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 17.04.2023
Pronounced on : 12.06.2023
..............................................................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the
2
following:
ORDER
Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the
parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, it is finally heard.
2. By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and
propriety of order dated 06.02.2014 passed by respondent No.1 whereby
her services from the post of Aaganwadi Worker for Aaganwadi Center
Ranibudhar got terminated.
3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, relevant
facts, which lie in a narrow compass need mention infra:-
(3.1) The petitioner vide order dated 19.12.2002 was appointed on
the post of Aaganwadi Worker for Aaganwadi Center Ranibudhar District
Dindori. Since there were certain irregularities in depositing the
honorarium for the post on which the petitioner was appointed, therefore,
she made various representations to respondent No.1 in this regard
pointing out the difficulties facing by her for not receiving payment of
wages. Thereafter, respondent No.1 giving reference of complaint made to
the Collector on 12.08.2013 by the residents of the area with regard to
committing irregularities in carrying out the activities of Aaganwadi
Center Ranibudhar, had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on
12.12.2013 (Annexure-P/4) asking her explanation for the alleged
complaint. In response to said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted
her reply vide Annexure-P/5 wherein she had admitted that she is not
residing in Village Ranibudhar but residing in Village Sarastal. However,
in the said reply, the petitioner had also pointed out several difficulties
which were being faced by her while running the center at Ranibudhar. In
the meantime, a report was also called from the Area Supervisor and in the
report, this fact was disclosed that earlier, the petitioner herself had
informed that since she is not residing in the respective village where
aaganwadi center situates, therefore, she is not carrying out the activities
of the center properly. Thereafter on 24.01.2014 (Annexure-P/6), another
show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing her to appear
before the authority on 28.01.2014. Subsequently, respondent No.1 vide
order dated 06.02.2014, terminated the petitioner's services from the post
of Aaganwadi Worker.
(3.2) An appeal was preferred before the Collector, District Dindori,
but the appellate authority vide order dated 30.06.2014 (Annexure-P/8)
dismissed the appeal.
(3.3) Thereafter, a second appeal was also preferred before the
Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, but vide order
dated 04.10.2014 (Annexure-P/9), the same got also dismissed. Hence, this
petition.
4. The respondents have filed reply to the petition whereby they
have justified their action stating therein that the procedure as prescribed
under the scheme of Aaganwadi Worker was followed before terminating
the services of the petitioner. According to them, while passing the order,
the principle of natural justice was followed. According to the respondents,
the petition does not have any substance and it merits dismissal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of
the respondent terminating the services of the petitioner was in violation of
principle of natural justice. According to him, the termination of even
Aaganwadi Worker cannot be made without conducting any enquiry or
without following the principle of natural justice. The respondent/authority
was under obligation to conduct a regular departmental enquiry to
ascertain the allegation levelled against the petitioner, since proper
procedure was not followed, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be
set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court viz. 2020 (3)
MPLJ 551 [Bhawar Kunwar Vs. State of M.P. and others], W.A.
No.111/2018 [Smt. Parvati Pawar Vs. State of M.P. and others], (2015)
4 MPLJ 151 [Smt. Kansa Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh], W.P.
No.13320/2013 [Mrs. Sunit Joshi Vs. State of MP and ors.], 2019 SCC
OnLine MP 1144 [Nirmala Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others], W.P. No.4534 of 2016 [Smt. Seema Jatav Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and others], W.P. No.5988/2017 [Smt. Fatma Bee
Mansuri Vs. State of M.P. & others] and also of the Supreme Court
reported in (2014) 4 SCC 392 [Nisha Devi Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others].
6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted
that the procedure as prescribed for terminating the services of Aaganwadi
Worker in the scheme itself was followed. He has further submitted that
while passing the impugned order, the principle of natural justice was also
followed and as such, there is nothing illegal in the impugned order passed
by the respondent. According to him, petition does not have any substance
and it deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, perused the record and also the scheme dated
10.07.2007 (Annexure-P/12) whereunder the procedure for removing the
Aaganwadi Worker has been prescribed which reads as under:-
"n& vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls gVkus dh izfdz;k%&
¼1½ ;fn vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk }kjk vkaxuckMh dsUnz dk
lapkyu fu;ekuqlkj ugha fd;k tkrk gS vFkok muds }kjk vius
dRrZO;ksa ,oa nkf;Roksa ds fuoZgu esa ykijokgh dh tkrh gS rks
ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh@efgyk ,oa cky fodkl ds vU; mPp vf/kdkjh
}kjk vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks lquokbZ dk volj nsrs gq,
tkWp esa nks"kh ik, tkus ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxkA
¼2½ ;fn lg;ksfxuh ekr` lfefr fdlh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds dk;Z ls
larq"V ugha gS rks i`Fkd lg;ksfxuh ekr` lfefr bl vk'k; dks izLrko
mi;qDr dkj.k n'kkZrs gq, cSBd esa izLrqr djsxh ,oa cSBd esa izLrko
cgqer ls ikfjr gksus ij i;Zos{kd dks izsf"kr djsxhA i;Zos{kd Lo;a
lacaf/kr lfefr }kjk izkIr izLrko ds ifjizs{; esa gVkus ds dkj.kksa ds
rF;ksa dh tkap djsxh mlds i'pkr viuk tkap izfrosnu 15 fnol
esa Li"V vuq'kalk lfgr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh dks Hkstuk
gksxkA ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk i;Zos{kd ds tkap izfrosnu dk
ijh{k.k djus ,oa mi;qDr dkj.k ik;s tkus ij lkr fnol esa
vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh lsok lekfIr dk fu.kZ; ysdj
lsok lekfIr dk vkns'k tkjh fd;k tkosxkA vkaxuckMh
dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls i`Fkd djus ds iwoZ lquokbZ dk
volj fn;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksXkkA
;fn lg;ksfxuh ekr` lfefr o i;Zos{kd ds er esa fHkUurk
gks rks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk tkap mijkar fu.kZ;
fy;k tkdj ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh@ftyk efgyk cky fodkl
vf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu i'pkr~ in ls i`Fkd fd;k tk ldsxkA
¼3½ ;fn i;Zos{kd dh tkudkjh esa dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk ds fo:) dksbZ
xaHkhj f'kdk;r lh/ks vkrh gS rks og bu f'kdk;rksa ij tkap mijkar
viuk tkap izfrosnu 15 fnol esa Li"V vuq'kalk lfgr cky fodkl
ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh dks Hkstuk gksxkA ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk
i;Zos{kd ds tkap izfrosnu dk ijh{k.k djus ,oa mi;qDr dkj.k ik;s
tkus ij lkr fnol esa vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh lsok
lekfIr dk fu.kZ; ysdj lsok lekfIr ds vkns'k tkjh fd;k tkosxkA
vkaxuckMh dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dks in ls i`Fkd djus ds iwoZ
lquokbZ dk volj fn;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA
¼4½ dk;ZdrkZ@lgkf;dk dh mez 60 o"kZ iw.kZ gksus ij mudh lsok Lor%
lekIr gks tk,xhA"
Looking to the allegation levelled against the petitioner and the procedure
provided under the scheme for removal of Aaganwadi Worker, it is clear
that if serious allegation is made against the Aaganwadi Worker, then
report from the concerned officer shall be called and after examining the
report, notice shall be issued to the employee concerned and after giving
opportunity of hearing, decision shall be taken. Here in the present case,
the complaint was made to the Collector about the irregularities for not
carrying out any activity in the aaganwadi center as the center was found
closed maximum time and the reason for the same was given that the
Aaganwadi Worker i.e. the petitioner since not residing in the respective
village, but residing in some other village, therefore, she was unable to
open the center regularly and remained unavailable. The main allegation
levelled against the petitioner is that she is not residing in the village
where center situates, whereas the basic object of the scheme and the
requirement to appoint Aaganwadi Worker of the respective area is for
opening the center regularly so as to make it functional. In the present
case, the petitioner was given a show-cause notice and pursuant thereto,
she submitted her reply wherein she had admitted the fact that she is not
residing in Village Ranibudhar, but residing in Village Sarastal and,
therefore, the authority had no option but to remove her from the post of
Aaganwadi Worker and under such circumstance, there was no occasion to
conduct any regular departmental enquiry to ascertain the allegation
because the fact was not disputed but on the contrary, it was admitted by
the petitioner herself.
8. The requirement of scheme before removing the Aaganwadi
Worker is that she should have been given a personal hearing and in the
present case despite admitting the fact by the petitioner, she was also
granted personal hearing in which she appeared before the authority. It is
clear from order dated 06.02.2014, that the petitioner herself had admitted
the fact that she is not residing at Village Ranibudhar, but residing at
Village Sarastal. In the appeal, the Collector after considering this aspect
had observed that the petitioner was given personal hearing and thereafter
when allegation was found proved, the order terminating her services was
passed. The Additional Commissioner in the second appeal had considered
this aspect and observed that because of non residence of the petitioner in
the village concerned, the functioning of center was not regular. However,
in the averments made in the petition, neither the petitioner has disputed
the factual aspect of the matter nor said that the facts mentioned in the
impugned order is incorrect.
9. The cases on which learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of
the case for the reason that in those cases, the Court had observed the
violation of principle of natural justice. As is clear from the material
available on record that the charge levelled against the petitioner was
admitted by herself in her reply then there was no reason for conducting
any enquiry. It is not a case in which charge which was denied and
disputed by the petitioner was required to be ascertained. Had it been a
situation, then the enquiry would have been required to ascertain the
disputed fact so to as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the allegation
made against the petitioner is correct or not. It is a settled principle of law
that enquiry is required to ascertain the correctness of the allegation, but if
allegation made against the employee is admitted by herself then no
further enquiry is required. The facts available in the present case and
documents available on record clearly reveal that proper opportunity of
hearing was granted to the petitioner and as such, no further enquiry to
ascertain the allegation was required. In all the cases on which reliance has
been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry was found
necessary to ascertain the allegation levelled against the employee, but in
the present case, when nothing is disputed, then there was no necessity of
conducting any enquiry. The principle of natural justice demands proper
opportunity before passing any order against a person which has adverse
impact over his service carrier or the order carries civil consequence, but
here in this case when the petitioner herself has come forward and
admitted the allegation showing reasons for not making the center
functional, the action of the respondent cannot be said to be illegal or in
violation of principle of natural justice. The Supreme Court in a case
reported in (2007) 13 SCC 352 [Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Social
Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Vs. Pindiga Sridhar and
others] has observed as under:-
"By now, it is well-settled principle of law that the principles of
natural justice cannot be applied in a straitjacket formula. Their
application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
To sustain the complaint of the violation of principles of natural
justice one must establish that he was prejudiced for non-observance
of the principles of natural justice. (Para 7)"
10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned
order passed by the respondent/authority does not call for any interference.
Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Devashish
DEVASHISH MISHRA
2023.06.14 10:35:27
+05'30'
