Minati Suna vs State of Orissa and others

L. Mohapatra, J.—The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order of termination under Annexure-1 dated 26-8-1996.

Case of the petitioner is that she was working in the Sarbodaya Samity from 1980 to 1990 and in the year 1990 she was selected for the post of Anganwadi worker and was appointed as such at Chipakur Anganwadi Centre in the district of Koraput. While the petitioner was continuing as such she received the order of termination dated 26-8-96, Further case of the petitioner is that before termination she had not been afforded any opportunity at all to defend herself and there was complete violation of principles of natural justice.

Counter has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties wherein it is stated that the petitioner on many occasions committed negligence in her duty for which adverse remarks bad been communicated to her in March, 1995 and January, 1996. Explanations were called for from the petitioner for unauthorised absence from duty and explanations were not found satisfactory. There were also other allegations against the petitioner. On 26-7-1996 a mass redressal camp was conducted at Chipakur by Project Administrator, Intigrated Tribal, Jeypore. Villagers of Chipakur complained before the said authority that the petitioner was negligent in her duties resulting in suffering of the villagers. Considering the complaint of the villagers and the past conduct of the petitioner the impugned order of termination was passed. In para-7 of the counter it is stated that despite several show cause notices the petitioner did not give any reply to the authorities and therefore there was no other alternative except passing the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner.

Shri Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the contention of the State counsel that notice to show cause had been issued to the petitioner. This Court by order dated 29-8-2000 directed the learned State Counsel to produce the records and pursuant to the said order records were produced in court. Notices on which reliance is placed by the learned State counsel are dated 24-7-1996, 10-7-1996 and 31-1-1996. It is stated by the State counsel that these three notices had been sent to the petitioner prior to termination, but the petitioner did not give any reply to the said notices. Copies kept in the records do not show that notices were served on the petitioner. Learned State counsel also fairly concedes that copies of the notices relied upon by him do not indicate that they were either sent by registered post or served in person. On the other hand, it appears that on 26-7-1996 some villagers complained before the Child Development Project Officer that the petitioner was not staying in the village and was coming to the Centre two three times in a month and was staying for two to three days. On the said complaint an endorsement was made on the same very day directing the petitioner to handover detail charges to the Helper to avoid further complaint and resentment. On the basis of the endorsement the impugned order of termination was passed on 26-8-1996. It is event from the said document that no enquiry was made with regard to complaint made by the villagers and the petitioner was directed to handover charge to the helper on the very same day. It further appears from the record that till the order of termination was passed on 26-8-1996 the petitioner had not been given any notice to show cause as to why her services shall not be dispensed with. Notices on which reliance is being placed by the learned State counsel cannot be accepted in absence of any material to show that the same were served on the petitioner either in person or by post.

Under the circumstances, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the order of termination was passed without following the principles of natural justice and accordingly the order is not sustainable.

I, therefore, allow the writ application, quash the order of termination under Annexure-1 and direct the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service. If no other person has been appointed in place of the petitioner in the said Centre in the meantime, the petitioner shall be paid arrear wages for the period she was kept out of service.

Requisites for communication of this order be filed within three days.

Writ application allowed.