Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manjulata Dhimole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 359 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MANJULATA DHIMOLE W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR
DHIMOLE, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ANGANWADI WORKER R/O TILAK WARD, TEHSIL
DEORI, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANJAY RAM TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEHSIL DEORI
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PROJECT OFFICER, PROJECT DISTRICT SAGAR
OFFICE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
DEORI, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANUBHAV JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge
in dismissing Writ Petition No.17443 of 2023, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as an Anganwadi
Worker on 12.09.1997. An FIR was got registered against her husband at Crime
No.195 of 2019 by Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) for having
disproportionate assets and an offence under Sections 13(1)(b) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered based
upon a complaint. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
There are no allegations of financial irregularities against the petitioner. Her
services have been put to an end on the basis of the fact that she has been
impleaded in a criminal case in pursuance to Section 120B of the IPC. She was
working as an Anganwadi Worker. She has nothing to do with the working of
the husband and her services are governed by entirely different set of rules and
guidelines. That prior to termination of the services of the petitioner, the
principles of natural justice are required to be followed. No such notice has
been issued to the petitioner to explain the circumstances. Therefore, writ
petition was filed.
3. The writ court took note of the fact that the petitioner as well as her
husband were in possession of the property worth Rs.1,27,18,195/- and total
income of the petitioner as well as of her husband during the check period was
Rs.68,64,066/-. There is no explanation for such disproportionate income and
no source could be indicated by them. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
4. This appeal has been filed on the ground that her case is squarely
covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Smt. Parvati Pawar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others decided on
18.02.2019 in Writ Appeal No.111 of 2018 (Indore Bench). The learned writ
court took note of the fact that the aforesaid fact was not considered in proper
perspective. There may be involvement of her husband in a criminal case but as
far as allegation against the petitioner are concerned, even the charge sheet does
not reflect any allegation made against the present appellant. She has only been
roped up in the case just because she was the wife of the accused in the
criminal case. In absence of any material against her in the criminal case, her
services could not have been terminated by the authorities.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. The termination of the services of the petitioner is owing to the fact that
she is an accused in a criminal case and an FIR was registered at Crime No.195
of 2019. That she has been roped in pursuant to the criminal conspiracy being
created by husband and wife having disproportionate property to their known
sources of income. There is no explanation for being in possession of the
property worth Rs.1,27,18,195/- whereas their total income was Rs.68,64,066/-.
No justification to the aforesaid effect could be given by the counsel appearing
for the appellant. His only challenge is that she is governed by different set of
rules and prior to terminating her services atleast a show cause notice was
required to be given. However, the fact remains that there are specific
allegations of disproportionate property of husband and wife. Heavy burden lies
upon them to explain the same. As a criminal case was registered against the
husband and the petitioner, the same will be the matter of evidence. Once a
criminal case is registered against an employee, her services can always be
terminated. There is no requirement of issuance of any show cause notice prior
to registration of an FIR as per the settled legal proposition of law. Under these
circumstances, the writ court has not committed any error in dismissing the writ
petition. Normally for the post of Anganwadi Worker, the candidates who are
living in villages apply. They are contractual employees governed by set of
rules, appointed for a fixed honorarium. The appointment order clearly reflects
that in case of involvement in a criminal case their services are liable to be
dispensed with.
7. Admittedly, there is an allegation of disproportionate property of the
petitioner and her husband which can only be looked into in a criminal case. As
there has no justification been given by the petitioner regarding disproportionate
property except the fact that her husband is also in service, no relief could have
been granted to the appellant.
8. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
9. Pending interlocutory application stands disposed off.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
SSL
