High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2724/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K. Sharm a, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petition er seeks quashing of order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Child Development Proj ect Officer (CDPO), Borjalenga I.C.D.S. Project, Dwarbond, Cachar, whereby her e ngagement as Anganwadi worker in Anganwadi Centre No.21 (Nayabil Goala Para Anga nwadi Centre) was cancelled. Case of the petitioner is that following a selection process she was selected an d appointed as Anganwadi worker in Maltilla Irongmara Anganwadi Centre No.7 on 2 5.02.2002. After about 9 years, she was transferred to Nayabil Goala Para Anganw adi Centre vide order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the CDPO. In place of the petit ioner, respondent No.6 i.e., Smti. Seema Kairi was transferred from Nayabil Goal a Para Anganwadi Centre to Maltilla Irongmara Anganwadi Centre No.7. Petitioner submitted leave application to the CDPO on 03.02.2011 on account of her illness. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 28.02.2011, engagement of the petitione r was cancelled. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the relief as indic ated above. Respondent No.5 i.e., CDPO, Borjalenga ICDS Project, Dwarbond, has filed affidav it. Stand taken is that local people of the Anganwadi Centre had submitted compl aint petitions against petitioner alleging that she did not perform her duties p roperly and remained absent for long period. Petitioner got married to a person from Nayabil village which is situated outside the Anganwadi Centre and since he r marriage, she started residing there. Show cause notice dated 03.02.2011 was i ssued to the petitioner for not performing census duty, but petitioner did not s ubmit any reply. The Circle Supervisor reported that petitioner remained absent from duty and there was negligence on her part which effected functioning of the Anganwadi Centre. After cancellation of the engagement of the petitioner, respo ndent No.7 i.e., Smti. Indra Pande, was appointed. In her reply affidavit, petitioner has denied that she did not discharge her dut ies properly and that there was negligence on her part. No notice was issued to her and there was violation of the principles of natural justice before cancella tion of her engagement. Consequential appointment of respondent No.7 i.e., Smti. Indra Pande is illegal. This Court by order dated 30.05.2011 had issued notice. Despite notice, responde nt Nos.6 & 7 have not come forward to contest the proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was at least entitled to a notice before cancellation of engagement. Copy of the complaint made again st her was also not furnished to her. Regarding transfer, she submits that as p er the applicable guidelines, the engagement of Anganwadi worker should be from local women, residing in the same village where the Anganwadi Centre is located. Therefore, question of transfer of Anganwadi worker does not arise. Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand submits that several not ices were issued to the petitioner to improve her performance but there was no i mprovement. Petitioner also failed to respond to such notices. He, therefore, su bmits that in such circumstances issuance of the impugned order is justified. Submissions made have been considered. Impugned order dated 28.02.2011 whereby engagement of the petitioner as Anganwa di worker was cancelled, reads as under: (cid:28)In the greater interest of local public and smooth implementation and proper fu nctioning of the ICDS Programme, engagement of Smti.Gita Koiri, Anganwadi Worker , Anganwadi Centre No.21 (Nayabeel G.P.) of Borjalenga ICDS Project is hereby ca ncelled with immediate effect. (cid:29) A perusal of the said order does not indicate that any notice was issued to the petitioner prior to cancellation of her engagement. Affidavit of respondent No.5 i.e., CDPO, Borjalenga ICDS Project, Dwarbond, only indicates that notice dated 03.02.2011 was issued to the petitioner regarding non performance of census dut y. In the office noting dated 15.02.2011 annexed to the affidavit of respondent No.5 as Annexure-1 it is noted that though show cause notice was issued by the C ircle Supervisor, he could not locate the petitioner. The above facts indicate t hat the show cause notice was not served on the petitioner. The said office note further discloses that decision was taken to terminate the engagement of two An ganwadi workers including the petitioner and to replace them by engaging two Ang anwadi workers on ad-hoc basis. Anganwadi workers are engaged under the Integrated Child Development Scheme, whi ch is a centrally sponsored scheme. Though such engagements are against the sche me and are not appointments against any post, nonetheless, the basic principles of natural justice are required to be followed before cancellation of such engag ement, more so when cancellation is on account of alleged lack of performance o r misconduct. An Anganwadi worker or helper is at least entitled to a notice dis closing the ground or reason for the proposed action contemplated against her so that she can meet the same. The cancellation order need not be a detailed one b ut should atleast disclose some application of mind by the authority as to why t he engagement is being cancelled. The materials placed on record neither discloses any such notice to the petition er nor any such application of mind. Under such circumstances, the impugned canc ellation cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed. Since appointment of respondent No.7 was only on ad-hoc basis against the vacanc y which arose due to cancellation of the engagement of the petitioner, she will have to make way in the event of re-engagement of petitioner in the same Anganwa di Centre. Respondent No.5 i.e., CDPO, Borjalenga ICDS Project, Dwarbond shall p ass appropriate order(s) for re-engagement of petitioner. However, it is made clear that this order will not debar the authorities from ta king such action as may be considered necessary in accordance with law. Writ petition stands allowed.