Manipur High Court
Nasim Banu vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The on 17 January, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023
Nasim Banu, aged about 39 years, W/O Md. Riyajuddin of Kiyamgei
Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Irilbung, Imphal East, Manipur, Pin -
795130.
...... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner/Secretary (Social Welfare), Government of
Manipur at Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal West, District Imphal
West, Manipur.
2. The Director (Social Welfare), Government of Manipur at A.T.
Line 2nd M.R. Gate, Ragailong, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East, Manipur at Porompat,
Imphal East, Manipur.
4. The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) ICDS-Project
IE-II, Keirao Bitra.
........Respondent/s
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioner :: Mr. K. Roshan, Advocate.
For the respondents :: Mrs. Ch. Sundari, G.A.
Date of Hearing :: 07.10.2023
Date of Judgment and Order :: 17.01.2024
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. for the State respondents.
[2] The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker vide order
dated 08.07.2008 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS
Project, Imphal East - II, Keirao Bitra along with others. It is stated that
Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme is a cent per cent
Centrally sponsored Scheme and it was introduced in Manipur on
02.10.1975 with a pilot project at Ukhrul T.D. Block and the scheme was later
on extended throughout the State with 34 projects covering 9 C.D. Blocks,
24 T.D. Blocks and 1 Urban. 4501 Nos. of Anganwadi Centres are also
actively functioning under these projects and ICDS Project takes care for
children below 6 (six) years of age including the essential needs of pregnant
women and nursing mothers residing in socially backward villages and urban
slums.
[3] The Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of
India sent a letter dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure - A/3) to the Administrative
Secretaries of Social Welfare Departments of all States/Union Territories
(UTs) to delegate the powers to recruit Anganwadi Workers
(AWWs)/Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) to the District Magistrates/District
Collectors across the country and Supervisors (against promotion quota)
under Anganwadi Services specially in 115 Aspirational Districts.
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 2
[4] Vide letter dated 16.08.2022, the Supervisor IE-II, Keirao Bitra
informed the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Imphal East - II,
Keirao Bitra that the petitioner was involved in a drug case on 11.08.2022.
Accordingly, the CDPO, ICDS Project Imphal East - II, Keirao Bitra
terminated the service of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker with immediate
effect due to her involvement in FIR No. 83(8) 2022 IBG-PS dated
10.08.2022. The termination order dated 18.08.2022 is impugned in the
present writ petition on the ground that the same was issued without
following due process of law and without any authority. It is stated that Show
Cause Notice was not served to the petitioner and an enquiry was never
conducted depriving the opportunity of being heard and the same is in
violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various
High Courts. It is also stated that the power to recruit Anganwadi
Workers/Anganwadi Helpers was delegated to the District
Magistrates/District Collectors across the country by letter dated 14.03.2018
issued by the Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India
and as such, the CDPO, ICDS Project, Imphal East - II, Keirao Bitra has no
jurisdiction to issue the termination order of the petitioner. It is prayed that
the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be re-instated into her
service with a consequential relief.
[5] The respondents filed counter affidavit, inter-alia, referring to
the letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Ministry of Women & Child
Development, Government of India. In para 2 of the letter, it is informed that
the power to recruit Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers may be
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 3
delegated to the District Magistrates/District Collectors across the country
and in para 4, it is stated that such power shall be delegated to District
Magistrates/District Collectors in 115 Aspirational Districts. It is clarified that
in the State of Manipur, Chandel is the only Aspirational District. Vide letter
dated 21.06.2018, the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur conveyed to the
Deputy Commissioner, Chandel that it has been delegated the power of
appointment of AWWs/AWHs and Supervisors, as Chandel has been
selected in the list of Aspirational District from the State of Manipur. It is also
reiterated that Social Welfare Department, being the Nodal Department for
implementation, the CDPO has authority to recruit AWWs/AWHs for all
districts of Manipur except the Aspirational District of Chandel. Admittedly,
the petitioner was appointed in Imphal East District which is not an
Aspirational District. It is also stated that the petitioner was found involved in
drug trafficking and she being associated with young children, there is no
bar from terminating her service due to involvement in serious crime.
Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers are not government servants
in strict sense and are paid monthly honorarium by the Government of India
from time to time and as such, they do not hold the status of
government/semi-government employees of the State/Central Government.
It is pointed out that the decisions of Madhya Pradesh and Gauhati High
Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable, as
the termination in those case was due to negligence of duty and professional
misconduct and there are statutory rules controlling their service conditions.
It is submitted that the writ petition be dismissed.
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 4
[6] Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
in the appointment order dated 08.07.2008, even though the petitioner and
others were appointed to the post of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and
Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) with the monthly honorarium at the rate of Rs.
1000/- (Rupees one thousand) and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred), no
tenure is mentioned for such appointment. It is submitted that even though
they are not the permanent government employees, the service of the
petitioner and others are required as long as the project continues. It is
further submitted that in absence of any rule for termination of service, at
least Show Cause Notice to the petitioner is mandatory, otherwise the same
will be in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is also stated that the
CDPO is not the competent to terminate the service of the petitioner, as the
power of appointment is delegated to District Magistrates/District Collectors
by letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Ministry of Women & Child
Development, Government of India. As a corollary, only District
Magistrates/Deputy Collectors are competent to terminate the service of the
Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers.
[7] Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws the
attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High
Court in the case of Smt. Premlata Verma vs. The State of MP & Ors.
reported as Indiankanoon.org/doc/49233301/. In that case, Anganwadi
Worker was terminated on the recommendation of the Gram Sabha. It was
held that procedure provided under Clause 5-A of the guidelines dated
02.03.2022 was not followed. Accordingly, the order of removal of the
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 5
petitioner from Anganwadi Worker was set aside. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also refers to another decision of Division Bench of Gauhati High
Court in the case of Musstt Anwara Begum Barbhuiya vs. The State of
Assam & 4 Ors. reported as indiankanoon.org/doc/138165744/ where the
petitioner was suspended and Show Cause Notice was issued. On finding
her reply unsatisfactorily, the authority terminated her from service. It was
held that termination of the petitioner was because of certain allegations on
the part of the petitioner which was stigmatic in nature and held that the
petitioner was entitled to certain protection. Accordingly, the Division Bench
upheld the order of Single Judge by setting aside the termination order of
the petitioner.
[8] Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.P. Ahuja vs. State
of Punjab & Ors. reported as (2003) 3 SCC 239 wherein it was held in para
7 that even a probationer like a temporary servant is entitled to certain
protection and his service cannot be terminated arbitrarily nor can his service
be terminated in a cryptic manner without following the principles of natural
justice. It is also submitted that in the present case, terminating the service
of the petitioner for involvement in a criminal case is punitive and the same
cannot be done without following due process and issuing the Show Cause
Notice to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies to the decision
of Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corp. Ltd.
reported as (1999) 2 SCC 21 where it was held that a probationer cannot be
terminated with stigma without holding any enquiry. Reliance is also placed
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 6
on Pradip Kumar v. Union of India: (2012) 13 SCC 182 to the point that
stigmatic discharge order in violation of statutory rule on one month's notice
period is illegal. In conclusion, Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the order of termination is without any authority and
the same is vitiated, as the petitioner was terminated by a stigmatic order of
allegation of involvement in a drug related case without following due
process of law and prays that the same may be set aside and the petitioner
be re-instated in service with whole consequential relief.
[9] Per contra, Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. for the State
respondents, refutes the allegation that the CDPO, ICDS Project is not
competent to terminate the service of the Anganwadi Workers
(AWWs)/Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) like the petitioner. Learned G.A. draws
the attention of this Court to the letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the
Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India informing all
the Administrative Secretaries of Social Welfare Departments of all
States/Union Territories regarding delegation of power of recruitment of
AWWs/AWHs and supervisors of the ICDS Scheme. It is pointed out that in
para 2 of the letter, the power to recruit AWWs/AWHs may be delegated to
the District Magistrates/District Collectors across the country and in para 4,
such power has to be delegated to District Magistrates/District Collectors in
the 115 Aspirational Districts all over India. It is also pointed out that Chandel
is the only Aspirational District in the State of Manipur and the State
Government has delegated the power to appoint the AWWs/AWHs and
Supervisors to the District Collector in Chandel. However, for the other Non-
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 7
aspirational Districts of Manipur, such as Imphal East, the Social Welfare
Department being a Nodal Department has the power to appoint the
AWWs/AWHs and Supervisors and as corollary, the authority to terminate
the AWWs/AWHs for all Districts of Manipur except the Aspirational District
of Chandel. Learned G.A. also distinguishes the cases referred by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, especially, the judgment of Madhya
Pradesh and Gauhati High Court on the ground that in these cases there
were rules provided governing the appointment of Angwandi Workers and in
the State of Manipur, there is no such rule/regulation. It is further submitted
that as the petitioner was involved in serious offences of narcotic object and
she being in touch with the small children, there is no impediment in
terminating her service without any notice that too she, being not a
Government Employee. Learned G.A. refers to the judgment in the case of
Ajit Kumar Nag vs. G.M., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported as (2005)
7 SCC 764 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that dismissal without
enquiry is permissible in certain cases where exigency of situation requires
for prompt action be taken and suspending a workman would not serve the
purpose.
[10] This Court has considered the rival submissions made at the
bar and perused the materials on record and relevant law.
[11] The issues involved in the present case are:
(i) Whether the Child Development Project Officer, Integrated
Child Development Services is competent to appoint and
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 8
terminate Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers in
non-Aspirational Districts in the State of Manipur?
(ii) Whether an Anganwadi Worker appointed for ICDS Project,
who is not a regular Government Employee, be terminated
from service by a stigmatic order without issuing any Show
Cause Notice, when there is no rule governing the service?
[12] This Court will first decide the question of competency of the
Child Development Project Officer, ICDS, for appointing and terminating the
service of the Anganwadi Workers (AWWs)/Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs).
From perusal of the letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Ministry of Women
& Child Development, Government of India (Annexure-A/3) to the
Administrative Secretaries of Social Welfare Department of all States/Union
Territories, it is mentioned in para 2 of the letter that the power to recruit
AWWs/AWHs may be delegated to the District Magistrates/District
Collectors across the country and in para 4, it is specified that such power is
to be delegated to District Magistrates/District Collectors with respect to 115
Aspirational District all over India. Admittedly, for the State of Manipur,
Chandel is the only Aspirational District out of 115 Districts identified by the
Government of India all over the country.
[13] On careful reading of the letter dated 14.03.2018, it is crystal
clear that the delegation for recruitment of AWWs/AWHs is mandatory to the
District Magistrates/District Collectors for the Aspirational Districts and for
the other Districts, it is not mandatory, but desirable. In this regard, Director,
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 9
Social Welfare Department, Manipur issued a letter dated 21.06.2018 to
Deputy Commissioner, Chandel delegating the power of recruitment of
AWWs/AWHs and supervisors in the Aspirational District of Chandel. For
other remaining Districts of Manipur, this work is taken up by the Social
Welfare Department which is a Nodal Department for implementation of the
ICDS Project in the State of Manipur.
[14] On perusal of the appointment order dated 08.07.2008,
appointing the petitioner and others as Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi
Helpers for ICDS Project, Imphal East - II, it is seen that the same was
issued by the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Imphal East
- II, Keirao Bitra. On the other hand, the order dated 18.08.2022, terminating
the honorary service of the petitioner as AWW on her alleged involvement in
criminal case, was also issued by the same CDPO, ICDS Project, Imphal
East - II, Keirao Bitra. The orders of appointment of the petitioner as well as
her termination are issued by the same official, i.e., the CDPO, ICDS Project,
Imphal East - II, Keirao Bitra. This Court is also of the opinion that the CDPO
is the competent authority for appointment of AWWs and AWHs for non-
Aspirational Districts for the State of Manipur and as a corollary, the
competent authority for termination of the service of Anganwadi Workers and
Anganwadi Helpers in terms of the letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the
Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India.
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 10
[15] The next question to be decided is whether the service of
Anganwadi Worker, who is not a regular Government Employee, be
terminated without any due process when the termination order is stigmatic.
[16] In the present case, it is admitted fact that the petitioner has
been appointed in connection with the ICDS Project on a monthly
honorarium basis and in the appointment order dated 08.07.2008, the tenure
is not mentioned. In other words, her service may be utilised as long as the
ICDS Project continues.
[17] There is no material on record to indicate existence of any
Rules or Regulations controlling the service conditions of Anganwadi
Workers and Helpers. In the cases relied by Mr. K. Roshan, learned counsel
for the petitioner, at least some Rules and Regulations are there governing
the appointment/engagement of such workers or the employees. On bare
reading of the impugned order dated 18.08.2022, this Court is of the
considered view that the termination order is stigmatic, because the
termination was due to her involvement in a criminal case. In fact, the
termination order was issued without affording any opportunity to the
petitioner for her explanation.
[18] This Court is of the opinion that at least a Show Cause Notice
ought to be issued to the petitioner to explain the circumstances leading to
her alleged involvement in the criminal case. The decision of Ajit Kumar
Nag (Supra) as relied by the learned G.A. will not strictly be applicable in the
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 11
present case, as the dismissal without enquiry was done under standing
order of India Oil Corporation.
[19] Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 issued by
the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Imphal East - II, Keirao
Bitra is set aside and the petitioner be re-instated to her service with
continuity of service within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this
order. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to back wages for the period
under termination. It is clarified that the respondents are at liberty to take up
any action in compliance with the principles of natural justice, if so advised.
[20] Writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the above
directions. No cost.
[21] Send a copy of this order to the Director, Social Welfare,
Manipur for information and necessary compliance.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
joshua
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2024.01.17
MARING 16:57:26 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 209 of 2023: Nasim Banu v. State of Manipur & Ors. Page 12
