Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sindhkumari Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 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 13 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 8960 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SINDHKUMARI KUSHWAHA W/O SHRI PARMOLE
KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGANWARI WORKER (TERMINATED) R/O GRAM
VIJRAVAN P.S. CHANDERA, DISTT. TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR TIKAM GARH DISTT. TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PALERA, WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISTT.
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. ANGURI AHIRWAR D/O RAMOLE AHIRWAR
OCCUPATION: AGANWARI WORKER VIJRAVAN
TAH. PALERA, DISTT. TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 28/01/2020
whereby representation of petitioner has been rejected on account of her
acquittal from the criminal case.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that vide order dated 15/02/2016
petitioner was removed from the post of Aaganwadi Karyakarta, Vijravan on
allegation of unauthorised sale of food-grain meant for Poshan Aahar
(Nutritious food).
3. Vide Annexure-P/5 one Ku.Anguri Ahirwar was appointed in place of
petitioner as Aaganwadi Karyakarta. Petitioner's contention is that an FIR was
lodged and a criminal case was instituted against petitioner. In the said criminal
case she was acquitted vide judgment dated 10th July, 2019 (Annexure-P/6) by
the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, Distt. Tikamgarh.
Thereafter she had moved an application for appointment but that has been
rejected vide order Annexure-P/1.
4. When this Court asked Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, as to
whether any show cause notice was given to petitioner or any enquiry was
conducted, then he submits that as per the Tahrir recorded by the Police and
the statement of certain persons that they had purchased the food-grains from
petitioner, impugned order Annexure-P/3 was issued removing petitioner from
the post of Aaganwadi Karyakarta. Shri Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, further
submits that termination of the petitioner was challenged after five years.
However, fact of the matter is that once petitioner was acquitted in the criminal
case and that being the basis of termination, challenging the order of termination
after five years cannot be said to be fatal qua the petitioner.
5. It is evident that neither the principles of natural justice were followed
before passing the impugned order nor any enquiry was conducted as is
admitted by Shri Deepak Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, on the basis of the
original record in his possession. When these aspects are taken into
consideration, then impugned order of termination contained in Annexure-P/3
and all consequential orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore,
impugned order (Annexure-P/3) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed
to reinstate the petitioner and if there is no vacancy at Vijravan, then she be
accommodated at a nearby village inasmuch as her termination being illegal and
arbitrary, as discussed above, cannot be allowed to sustain.
6. In above terms, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
