High Court · 2012

Heard Ms. D. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B.D. Sarm a, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department. The petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker in the centre called 75 No. Chama rkuchi Anganwadi Centre under Borbhag ICDS Project in the district of Nalbari, i s aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2011, by which her services as Anganwadi Wo rker has been dispensed with. The order has been passed by the CDPO, Borbhag ICD S Project, Kamarkuchi. For a ready reference, the order is quoted below :- (cid:28)GOVT. OF ASSAM Office of the Integrated Child Development Project No. CDPO(B)&WO 75/2007/85 Dtd. 22.12.2011 To Smti Bobby Talukdar Deka, Anganwadi Worker, No. 75 Chamarkuchi Anganwadi Centre OFFICE ORDER You have not been able to furnish any proof of your ability as a ’Karmi’ by subm itting the compliance report of the directions conveyed to you vide letter dated

9.12.2011 to the undersigned even after expiry of the stipulated period. For neglecting your duty for a long period, irregular attendance at the Centre, not maintaining the Centre’s records and register properly, depriving the benefi ciaries of their entitlements inspite of availability of allotted fund since Jun e, 2011, willful non-disclosure of accounts in respect of allotted sum to the pu blic and other staff, not maintaining cordial relationship with the Helper, inde cent behaviour towards staff in presence of public, using unparliamentarily lang uage towards a particular community etc., you have lost faith, good will and qua lification as required of you from the public and the office. For your own acts you are not acceptable to any one of us. Therefore, through this letter you are relieved from rendering your service as K armi at the No. 75 Chamarkuchi Centre. Sd/- (NA Begum) Child Development Project Officer, Borbhg Integrated Child Development Project Kamarkuchi. (cid:29) Prior to that the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 9.12.2011 in which i t was stated that inspite of the assurance furnished by the petitioner to discha rge her duties with sincerity, she failed to comply with the said assurance. The notice further indicate that the petitioner have prayed for mercy. On perusal o That the deponent begs to state that the writ petitioner has not perform f the said notice, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner was irr egularity and indecent behaviour, earning bad name for the department. According to the petitioner, her services as Anganwadi Worker could not have bee n discussed without issuing notice and giving reasonable opportunity of being he ard and that the order being stigmatic, is not sustainable in law. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated thus :- (cid:28)4. ed her duties as well as run the centre in question properly and she is not will ing to extend her co-operation with Anganwadi Level Managing Committee. It would be pertinent to mention herein that show cause notice No. AWC(B) 75/2011/48 dat ed 29.7.2011 issued to the writ petition by CDPO/ deponent / WHEREBY writ petiti oner was asked as to why the writ petition has withdrawn the fund to distribute food items without convening any meeting with AWCMC and as to why the writ petit ioner has not ensured the sanctioned amount received to AWCMC as well as to the public and as to why or under what authority the writ petitioner has distributed Rs. 4000/- to AWH and earlier President of the Committee and as to why records are not maintained properly submitted monthly report etc. and in nutshell vide t he aforesaid letter dated 29.7.2011 several questions, with regard to her irregu larities committed in respect of running the centre in question, were asked to w rit petitioner and sought reply from her within 2 days. The deponent further begs to state that reminder dated 17/8/2011 & 27/8/2011 wer e communicated to the writ petitioner so as to enable her to give reply against the aforesaid letter dated 29.7.2011 but the writ petitioner did not pay any hee d in this regard and office peon book shows that the writ petitioner has receive d the several letters issued from the CDPO’s office. It also pertinent to mentio n herein that there were several complaints lodged against the writ petitioner p ertaining to her irregularities which she committed in respect of running the ce ntre i.e. No. 75 Samarkuchi AWC under Borbhag ICDS Project, Nalbari.

5. That the deponent begs to state that record reveals that the deponent ha d placed the matter with regard to the irregularities committed by the writ peti tioner before the Divisional Programme Officer, Kamrup, Ghy-1 stating that the w rit petitioner, No. 75 Samarkuchi AWC neither obey any instruction of CDPO nor C ommittee or public also till to date and as such I am unable to maintain the afo resaid AWC with SNP. Kindly take alternative measures in this regard from your e nd and after getting approval from Programme Officer the writ petitioner was ter minated vide order dated 22.12.2011. (cid:29) While Ms. D. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized the need f or compliance of the principles of natural justice, Ms. B.D. Sarma, learned Stan ding Counsel, Social Welfare Department, submits that since the petitioner appoi nted as Anganwadi Worker, which is an honorary service, there is no question of compliance of the said principles in a straight-jacket formula. She also submits that since the petitioner herself admitted her fault with the undertaking that she will improve her performance in future but she failed to conform to the said undertaking, her service has rightly been dispensed with, keeping in mind the n ature of job performed by her as Anganwadi Worker in the particular Anganwadi Ce ntre for the welfare of the children. By Annexure-4 appeal dated 11.1.2012, the petitioner has already approached the Director of Social Welfare Department, Assam. Ends of justice would be met if th e said Director is directed to dispose of the appeal taking note of all the atte nding facts and circumstances and in accordance with law. Let the Annexure=4 appeal be disposed of by the said Director as expeditiously a s possible, preferably within two months by calling for the reports etc, which w ill through the required light in the matter. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of, without howeve r, any order as to costs. Interim order operating in this proceeding stands vacated.