Shobha vs Prakalpa Adhikari and Others

Heard advocate Shri Dahat for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 and 5. Nobody appears for other respondents. However, other respondents have filed return and the respective counsel have invited our attention to it.

In present matter, we do not find it necessary to delve more into the dispute.

The petitioner has been removed from her post as Anganwadi Sevika w.e.f. 02/01/2002 by order dated 23rd January, 2002. This Court has admitted the matter but no interim relief came to be granted.

Advocate Shri Dahat submits that the petitioner had been working as Anganwadi Sevika since prior to 1987 and in the false/fabricated case holding that the ration meant for use at Anganwadi Centre was sold in open market she has been victimized. He points out that there was no departmental enquiry and no opportunity whatsoever to meet those allegations. According to him, some enquiry was conducted behind her back and then show cause notice was issued on 30/12/2001 giving time of 24 hours to file reply. The said show cause notice was also not served upon her and ultimately by the impugned order she came to be terminated. He, therefore, seeks relief of continuity and full back wages.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that entire action against the petitioner has been taken by her employer namely respondent No.4 along with respondent Nos.1 and 2. She, however, adds that Anganwadi Sevika is not permanent employee and she works only on honourarium for fixed tenure on contract basis, she, therefore, claims that in this situation no regular departmental enquiry was necessary.

The petitioner has not produced before us initial order of appointment. However, record shows the order dated 03/12/1987 which reappoints the petitioner. The reappointment is from Bhilkheda (Manbhang) to Bhilkheda (Gou) Centre. Reason for this reappointment is given as "on complaint". Copy of order dated 01/12/1987 shows that the petitioner was warned as a complaint was made against her by villagers that she was selling ration. It is also alleged in that notice that she did not employ any attendant but manipulated record and received honourarium for attendant also. It is alleged that on the date of payment of honourarium she was bringing one lady by paying her daily wage of Rs. 10/to show that she was working as attendant. The said communication also mentions that show cause notice was served upon her but she failed to submit any explanation thereto.

After this 1987 appointment, the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2002 is next adverse material available on record. By this order she has been removed from the post of Anganwadi Sevika w.e.f. 02/01/2002 i.e. retrospectively. In this order it is mentioned that for selling ration received under Supplementary Diet Scheme and for behaving arrogantly with villagers, action was taken. The order, therefore, definitely casts stigma on her.

On 13/12/2001 she was called upon to submit her explanation. The show cause notice shows that the complaint was received against her and enquiry was conducted on 04/12/2001. The record also shows panchnama of about 45 kgs food grains conducted on 04/12/2001. The show cause notice mentions that 45 kgs rice to be used at Anganwadi Centre was recovered from the shop where it was displayed for sale. The petitioner was called upon to explain why her services should not be terminated. She was given time of 24 hours for submitting reply.

The panchnama by which the Child Development Project Officer took possession of this 45 kgs rice shows that said authority visited Bhilkheda on 04/12/2001. Police Patil informed him that on previous day i.e. on 3rd December, 2001 the petitioner had provided 45 kgs. rice for sale to one Manaji Sonya, the Police Patil seized it and brought it to his house. The Child Development Project Officer has accordingly submitted report on 18/12/2001 to Additional Collector and Project Officer, ICDS, Dharni. He has recommended removal of the petitioner and her assistant. In this report, he does not point out the show cause notice dated 13/12/2001 or then whether any reply and defence submitted by the petitioner to it.

Though advocate Shri Dahat has raised some other contentions, in present situation, as termination appears to be in breach of the principles of natural justice and without giving due opportunity to the petitioner, we are inclined to permit the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to hold fresh proceedings/fresh enquiry as per law in the matter. Only to facilitate this exercise, we proceed to pass the following order to meet the ends of justice : i) The order dated 2/3rd January, 2002 is quashed and set aside.

ii) The petitioner shall be reinstated in the service but will be treated to be under suspension.

iii) The respondents shall proceed against her as per law and complete necessary action within next eight months after communication of this order to them.

iv) During the period of suspension the petitioner shall be entitled to receive subsistence allowance @ 50% of her honourarium/wages if she cooperates in the enquiry proceedings.

v) The petitioner has been without any source of income (as alleged) since her termination, her entitlement to wages/honourarium for the period for which she was out of employment depends upon the income of the proceedings which we have ordered today. Only to enable her to face those proceedings we direct respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to release the honourarium/wages for the period of two years to her as advance. The rate of the honourarium/wages at which she was paid for the month of December, 2001 shall be used for the purposes of computing this amount. This amount shall be released within a period of two months from today.

vi) The amount so paid shall be appropriated/adjusted towards her final entitlement which is dependent upon the outcome of the enquiry, if she is reinstated.

viii) The authority passing final orders in enquiry shall make necessary arrangement while appropriating the amount already received by her towards her other entitlements like back wages/honourarium for past period, continuity etc.

ix) If the petitioner is not reinstated, the amount paid to her towards the subsistence allowance and as an honourarium for past two years, shall not be recovered from her.

The petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.