Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Priyanka Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 9477 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
SMT. PRIYANKA PAL W/O SHRI MUKESH PAL, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SAHAYIKA WARD NO.1
PRATHIVIPUR TAHAPRATHIVIPUR, DISTT.
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MAHENDRA PATERIA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR, TIKAMGARH, DISTT. TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PARIYOJNA ADHIKARI, EKIKRIT BAL VIKAS
P A R I Y O J N A PRATHIVIPUR, TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JILA KARYAKRAM ADHIKARI MAHILA BAL
VIKASH VIBHAG, TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. COMMISSIONER, SAGAR DIVISION SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 28/01/2009 passed
by Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Prathvipur,
Distt.Tikamgarh whereby services of the petitioner who was working as
Aaganwadi Karyakarta in Ward No.1, Prathavipur has been dispensed with on
account of unauthorised absence.
2. Petitioner had filed an appeal before the Collector, Tikamgarh who vide
order dated 24th October, 2009 (Annexure-P/4) rejected the appeal.
3. Petitioner thereafter had approached this Court by filing W.P.
No.12726/2009 which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the
Commissioner.
4. Vide order dated 15th October, 2012 Commissioner, Sagar Division,
Sagar in Appeal Case No.392/v/89/2009-10 rejected the appeal, hence this
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of
Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court at Indore in the case of Smt.
Parvati Pawar Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.A. No.111/2018) decided
on 18/02/2019 wherein Hon'ble Division Bench relying on a decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P.,
AIR 2009 SC 2375 after porting exhaustively from the said judgment pointing
out that what is the natural justice, had set aside the order of termination in that
case.
6. It has been held by Hon'ble Division Bench that if Aaganwadi Karyakarta
was critically ill, then her services could not have been dispensed with by
merely issuing a show cause notice and failure of the appellant to submit her
reply on account of critical illness.
7. Shri Amit Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer, supports the impugned orders
and submits that petitioner has tried to camouflage her illness. It is submitted
that Collector Tikamgarh has categorically noted in his order dated 24th
October, 2009 that petitioner filed an application showing that her child was ill
but the medical certificate which has been produced is from a Medical Officer
at Jhansi showing that petitioner was ill.
8. A perusal of the record reveals that in Annexure-P/4 there is a clear
mention of the fact that petitioner was given a show cause notice on
16/01/2009. Since nobody was available at her home, it was affixed at her
house. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner.
9. Petitioner has taken a plea that since there was a curfew imposing in
Prithavipur, therefore, she could not sent her application in time. Order of the
Collector reveals that curfew was imposed on account of death of Sunil Nayak
on 27/11/2008 but later on that curfew was relaxed on 15/12/2008 and
03/01/2009, therefore, petitioner's contention that she could not sent application
for her leave on account of curfew is not made out.
10. Certificate which has been produced from a Medical Officer at Jhansi
also does not inspire confidence inasmuch as it is mentioned that petitioner
suffering from enteric fever and she was advised rest for two months. In the
medical jurisprudence, enteric fever at one who does not require two months'
rest. Petitioner had consulted said doctor in OPD. There are not test report to
show that on what basis doctor had detected petitioner to be suffering from
enteric fever. It is also not on record that what medicines were prescribed and
they were actually procured/obtained/purchased by the petitioner for the said
treatment. Besides this, petitioner in her application has shown reasons for her
non-attending the work due to ill-health of her daughter. Thus, she was obliged
to produce medical certificate of her daughter instead she produced her own
certificate which clearly pointed out that her claim was false as has been noted
by the Collector, Tikamgarh.
11. Collector, Tikamgarh has clearly mentioned that she has not mentioned
as to she was suffering from which serious ailment for which she was required
to remain on leave for such a long duration.
12. Taking these facts into consideration, when the impugned order is
tested, then having issued a notice on 16/01/2009, petitioner having failed to file
reply to the said show cause notice, it cannot be said that principles of natural
justice were violated. Critical illness as has been discussed by Hon'ble Division
Bench in the case of Parvati Pawar (supra) has no co-relation with the facts
of the present case inasmuch as such critical illness is not corroborated by any
documentary evidence, therefore, in the present case, order of termination of
the petitioner for her unauthorised absence and not being present during two
inspections which were carried out at Aaganwadi Kendra, does not call for any
interference.
13. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
