Orissa High Court
Minati Mahalik @ Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others on 23 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11258 of 2020
Minati Mahalik @ Nayak .... Petitioner
Ms. S.K.Dwivedy
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B.P.Tripathy,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 23.8.2022.
07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State.
3. The Petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker of
Rudhingia Anganwadi Centre in the district of Balasore as per
the order dated 27th April, 1998. While working as such, she
was involved in a criminal case for which, by order dated 15th
April, 2020 passed by Sub-Collector, Balasore she was
disengaged w.e.f. 9th March, 2020. In so far as the criminal
case is concerned, the same was registered against the
Petitioner and her family members under Sections
341/323/294/354/379/506/34 of I.P.C. in C.T. Case
No.175/2020 of the court of learned J.M.F.C., Soro.
// 2 //
4. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not issued with any
show cause notice prior to her disengagement and merely
because of her involvement in the criminal case such a harsh
step was taken, which is unjustified. It is also submitted that as
per the revised guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers
issued by the Government in W.C. Development Department,
an Anganwadi Worker can be disengaged by the Sub-Collector
if any serious or persistent lapse is noted in her work and
further that she should be given an opportunity to show cause
against the action proposed to be taken against her and personal
hearing by the Sub-Collector. As regards the show cause
notice, it is stated in the counter filed by the State-Opposite
Parties that a show cause notice was attempted to be served
upon the Petitioner but because of her absence in her house as
well as in the village, the same could not be personally served,
so the disengagement order was pasted in her house wall. In
the mean time, the criminal case has ended in acquittal of the
Petitioner and other accused persons from the offences as per
the judgment passed by learned J.M.F.C. on 9th March, 2021, a
copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the Rejoinder filed
by the Petitioner.
5. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite
Parties, it is stated that the Petitioner was detained in custody
for a period exceeding 48 hours and in case of a Government
servant, he shall be deemed to have been suspended w.e.f. the
date of detention. Since the Petitioner being an Anganwadi
// 3 //
Worker is not a regular employee she was disengaged on the
above ground.
6. Clearly, the above stand cannot be accepted. Further, notice
by affixture cannot be treated as personal service in any manner
whatsoever particularly, when it relates to disengagement of a
person from his/her service. That apart, the Petitioner has been
acquitted in the criminal case in question. It is stated at the bar
that the post in question has not yet been filled up.
7. Having regard to all the above facts, therefore, this Court is
of the considered view that the impugned order No.405 dated
15.4.2020 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore cannot be
sustained in the eye of law and is hereby quashed. The
Petitioner be reinstated in her former post if there is no legal
impediment within a period of four weeks from the date of
communication of this order or production of certified copy
thereof by the Petitioner.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
AKB Judge
// 4 //
