Orissa High Court
Pratima Pradhan vs Collector on 18 November, 2024
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 11484 of 2019
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)
---------------
Pratima Pradhan ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
Collector, Ganjam & Others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Kanungo,
Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Patnaik,
AGA
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
18th November, 2024
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Helper
of K.Karadakana Anganwadi Centre-II under Seragada
Block in Ganjam district by order dated 02.03.2019 of
the CDPO, Seragada. She joined on 02.03.2019. She
claims to have been subjected to several threats by the
local people which she brought to the notice of the
authorities including the Collector and Police. It is stated
that no action was taken, but the CDPO advised her to
remain on leave. She went on leave citing medical
grounds. While the matter stood thus, by order dated
02.07.2019 passed by the CDPO, Seragada, she was
disengaged. Being aggrieved, she has approached this
Court.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the State a stand
has been taken that her selection as Anganwadi Helper
was without approval of the village Mahila Sabha as
proper selection procedure had not been followed. Some
ward members and villagers of the K.Karadakana GP
have ventilated their grievance before the Collector
regarding illegally committed by the Selection Committee.
3. Mr. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that no reason has been spelt
out in the order of disengagement and no opportunity of
hearing was granted before passing of the same.
4. Learned State counsel submits that there were several
allegations of improper procedure of selection followed by
the Mahila Sabha for which the matter was inquired into
by the DSWO, SSSO and the CDPO. On the basis of the
report so submitted, the petitioner was disengaged. Mr.
Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for private
Opposite Party submits that the petitioner was not a
permanent employee so as to claim adherence to the
principles of natural justice. Since there were several
allegations and the authorities found that her selection
was not proper, she was rightly disengaged.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and having
also perused the impugned order dated 27.06.2019, copy
of which is enclosed as Annexure-7, it is apparent that
all that the State has stated in its counter under
paragraph-4 as regards improper selection procedure
followed by the Mahila Sabha and other allegations
relating thereto have not been mentioned in the least in
the impugned order. In fact, the same is completely silent
as regards the reason for disengaging the petitioner.
Moreover, nothing has been placed before this Court by
the State to show that the principle of natural justice was
followed by the authority before taking the drastic step of
disengaging the petitioner from service. It is needless to
mention that right to livelihood is included within the
right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and therefore, it is incumbent upon
the authorities to adhere to the principles of natural
justice and also justify their action by cogent reasons.
6. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, it is
evident that the authorities have not followed the above
salutary principle of law for which, the impugned order
becomes vulnerable to challenge.
7. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ
application is allowed. The impugned order 27.06.2017 is
hereby quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in service
forthwith. It shall however be open to the authorities to
proceed against the petitioner, if there is any valid cause
of action but the same shall be after strictly adhering to
the principles of natural justice.
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Deepak
