Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt Uma Lakhere vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 September, 2025

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23380




                                                           1                             WA-2686-2025
                             IN     THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                       BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
                                                          &
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
                                               ON THE 22nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                                WRIT APPEAL No. 2686 of 2025
                                                 SMT UMA LAKHERE
                                                      Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashwini Johri -
                          Advocate for the appellant.
                                  Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the
                          respondents/State.

                                                               ORDER

Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed

against the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15849/2025 by which the petition filed by the appellant against her dismissal from the post of Aaganwadi Worker has been dismissed. 2 . It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that once the order of termination was passed on the allegations, then the same cannot be passed without conducting a full-fledged departmental enquiry. In the case of allegation, the word enquiry as mentioned in Clause B(5) of the guidelines

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23380

2 WA-2686-2025 for removal of Aaganwadi Worker has been interpreted as full-fledged departmental enquiry. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Kansa vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2015(4) MPLJ 151 , Bhawar Kunwar vs. State of M.P. & Ors, 2020(3) MPLJ 551 as well as judgment dated 18.06.2019 passed by the High Court in W.P.No.1434/2019 (Indore) (Smt. Nirmala Rawat vs. State of M.P.& Ors.).

3 . Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents/State that where the delinquent officer has admitted her guilt, then holding a full- fledged departmental enquiry is not required.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5 . In order to verify as to whether the appellant had admitted her guilt or not, it would be appropriate to go through the reply filed by the appellant against the show-cause notice which reads as under :-

" ित, ीमान प रयोजना अिधकार महोदय, म हला एवं बाल वकास वािलयर शहर मांक-4 वषय - कारण बताओ सूचना प का प ट करण ।

महोदय, वषया तगत लेख है क आपके ारा दनांक 10.12.2019 को सायं 4:15 बजे पर यूिनविसट पर यादव माकट के पीछे संचािलत भदौ रया डे यर पर मेरा ब चा दध ू लेने गया था, उसी व मेरे लड़के ने मुझे बताया क कार से टकराने से मेरा फोन िगर गया है और मुझे चोट आ गई है । म उस व घर से 2:30 बजे ब च , गभवती, धा ी म हलाओ के िलये दाय टे क होम राशन अपने के पर ले जा रह थी, हड़बड़ाहट म मुझे कुछ नह ं सूझा और म घबराकर उसी गाड़ को लेकर िसट से टर भदौ रया डे यर पर पहुचं ी। ीमती अंजू कौरव ारा मुझे े स म दे खने पर मेरे पीछे गाड़ लगा द और क ट को गाड़ से उतरवाकर मुझे डरा-धमकाकर मुझसे बोली क तुम क टे बेचने आई हो और मेरा झूठा पंचनामा तैयार कया। ािथनी मुसीबत म थी और घबराई हुई थी, जब क मेरा क टे बेचने का

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23380

3 WA-2686-2025 कोई इरादा नह ं था। ािथनी के साथ म गाड़ के ायवर ारा मा छः क टे उतरवाये गये थे, जब क नो टस म 10 बैगऔर 2 आधे भरे हुए बो रय का उ लेख कया गया है जो क अस य है ।

                                 अतः ािथनी का कारण बताओ नो टस का प ीकरण               तुत है ।
                                                                                   ािथनी,
                                दनांक:
                                                                           ( ीमती उमा लखेरे)
                                                                          आंगनवाड़ कायकता"

6 . From the plain reading of this reply, it is clear that the appellant had admitted that she went to Bhadauria Dairy. Although it was her contention that after receiving a phone call from her son that he has met with an accident, she went to Bhadauria Dairy, but no supporting document was filed by the appellant along with her reply to the show-cause notice. Although in the reply it was submitted that Smt. Anju Kaurav had got the bags unloaded, but in the later part of the reply, it is mentioned that the driver of the appellant had merely unloaded six bags, whereas in the notice 10 bags and two half filled bags were wrongly mentioned. As already pointed out, the appellant had not filed any document to show that her son had met with an accident. Furthermore, in the show-cause notice it is mentioned that at 4 pm an information was already received that the food grains which are meant for children, pregnant women etc. are being sold in the market and only thereafter at 4.30 pm the appellant was intercepted. Why the appellant had got 6 bags of food grains unloaded at Bhadauria Dairy, has not been explained by the appellant. Although the counsel for the appellant by

referring to the reply tried to submit that in fact the bags were unloaded by Anju Kaurav, but the appreciation of reply as suggested by the counsel for

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23380

4 WA-2686-2025

the appellant cannot be accepted. If the bags were not unloaded by the driver of the appellant, then she should have specifically stated that those 6 bags were got unloaded by Smt. Anju Kaurav. On plain reading of reply, Annexure P/7, it is clear that the appellant had admitted that she went to Bhadauria Dairy and at least 6 bags were already unloaded by her driver. Under these circumstances, once the crux of the allegation was already admitted by the appellant, then in the considered opinion of this Court, full- fledged departmental enquiry into the allegation was not required. 7 . So far as the acquittal of the appellant in a criminal case is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that her service were not terminated on account of registration of criminal case or filing of charge-sheet. Her services were terminated on the basis of the allegations. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the acquittal of the appellant in a criminal case will not take the case of the appellant any further. 8 . Furthermore, it appears that the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed in the year 2000, whereas the writ petition was filed on 29.04.2025, approximately after five long years. Delay and laches defeat the equity and it appears that only after her acquittal in a criminal case she started reagitating that she should be taken back in service. As already pointed out, since the termination of the appellant was on its own merit and not on the ground of registration of criminal case, therefore, the representation made by the appellant after her acquittal will not amount to sufficient explanation for not approaching the Court at the earliest. 9 . As no mistake was committed by the learned Single Judge, therefore,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23380

5 WA-2686-2025 this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference.