High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 6530/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN 6531/2011. This order will dispose of W.P.(C) Nos. 5881/2011, 6530/2011 and 2. Facts and reliefs sought for in all the three cases being identi cal, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common orde r. 3. At the outset, facts of the three cases may be briefly noted. W.P.(C) No.5881/2011 4. Petitioner Smti. Moniwara Begum @ Monowara Begum Majharbhuiya wa s appointed as Anganwadi Helper in No.108 Chirakandi South Anganwadi Centre on 1 5-09-1999 by Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Salchapra ICDS Project in the district of Cachar (Assam). 5. After rendering service for about 12 years, petitioner was termi nated from her engagement vide order dated 19-07-2011 issued by CDPO, Salchapra ICDS Project. The reason for termination was stated to be due to negligence of d uty and remaining absent for a long time. 6. ging the legality and validity of the termination order dated 19-07-2011. Being aggrieved, she has filed the present writ petition challen 7. Contention of the petitioner is that no show-cause notice or opp ortunity of hearing was given to her before termination of service. She has also disputed the correctness of the allegation. 8. This Court by order dated 23-11-2011 issued notice of motion. By order dated 11-02-2013, case was admitted for hearing. 9. Respondent No.4 i.e. CDPO, Salchapra ICDS project has filed affi davit. Stand taken is that due to long time absence and non-performance of duty by the petitioner, Divisional Programme Officer directed vide order dated 12-07- 2011 to terminate the engagement of the petitioner. Accordingly, CDPO issued the impugned order. W.P.(C) No.6530/2011 10. Petitioner Smti. Reba Rani Sinha was appointed as Anganwadi Work er in No.79 West Sarishakuri Anganwadi Centre under Kalain ICDS Project in the d istrict of Cachar vide order dated 28-02-2002 issued by the CDPO, Kalain ICDS Pr oject. In the course of her engagement, she was transferred to No.14 Bhagmara An ganwadi Centre on 01-08-2007. Since then petitioner worked in the said Centre. 11. After rendering service for about 9 years, CDPO, Kalain ICDS Pro ject issued order dated 21-07-2011 terminating the engagement of the petitioner on the ground of absence from the Centre and negligence of duty. 12. Petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the said order on the ground that it was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor was any opportunit y of hearing granted to her. The allegations which formed the basis of terminati on are incorrect. Petitioner has submitted representation but there was no respo nse. 13.
Decision
This Court by order dated 23-12-2011 admitted the writ petition and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21-07-2011. 14. Respondent No.5 i.e. CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project has filed counter affidavit. Stand taken is that petitioner did not perform her duty regularly. T here was allegation of financial irregularity against the petitioner which was e nquired into. Thereafter, petitioner refunded an amount of ‘ 8400/- to the Circl e Supervisor which was meant for implementation of the scheme. W.P.(C) No.6531/2011 15. Petitioner Smti. Leena Tantubay was appointed as Anganwadi Worke r in No.98 Sindura TE Anganwadi Centre under Kalain ICDS Project in the district of Cachar by order dated 28-02-2002 issued by the CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project. 16. After rendering service for more than 9 years, petitioner was te rminated from her engagement vide order dated 21-07-2011 issued by the CDPO on t he ground of absence from the Centre and negligence of duty. She submitted repre sentation on 17-11-2011 for her re-instatement but there was no response. 17. ing the order dated 21-07-2011. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition assail 18. Contention of the petitioner is that no notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to her before termination of her engagement. She also denie d the allegations levelled against her. 19. and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 21-07-2011. This Court by order dated 23-12-2011 admitted the writ petition 20. Respondent No.5 i.e. CDPO, Kalain ICDS Project has filed affidav it. She has stated that after her marriage in February, 2007, petitioner did not attend her duties regularly and did not distribute Supplementary Nutrition Prog ramme (SNP) food stuff. Since petitioner was irregular and negligent in discharg ing duties, she was terminated from her engagement. Enquiry was conducted agains t her which found the allegations correct. 21. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 22. Without commenting on the merit of the allegations levelled agai nst the petitioners which led to termination of their engagements, a perusal of the impugned orders do not indicate that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioners prior to termination of their engagements. 23. Short point for consideration is whether petitioners were entitl ed to a notice or hearing before termination of their engagements, considering t he nature of their engagements ? 24. This Court in a recent order dated 15-03-2013 passed in W.P.(C) No.2724/2011 took the view that even though engagements of Anganwadi Workers or Helpers are not against any post as is understood in service law, they would sti ll be entitled to minimum protection of the principles of natural justice, which would meet the requirement of fair procedure. Relevant portion of the said orde Anganwadi workers are engaged under the Integrated Child Development Sch r reads as under :- (cid:28) eme, which is a centrally sponsored scheme. Though such engagements are against the scheme and are not appointments against any post, nonetheless, the basic pri nciples of natural justice are required to be followed before cancellation of su ch engagement, more so when cancellation is on account of alleged lack of perfor mance or misconduct. An Anganwadi worker or helper is at least entitled to a not ice disclosing 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 detaile d one but should atleast disclose some application of mind by the authority as t o why the 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. (cid:29) 25. Similar is the position in the three cases under consideration. There is nothing on record to show that petitioners were put on notice before te rmination of their engagements. Learned Standing Counsel also could not show any distinguishable feature in the present batch of cases. 26. In view of above, the impugned termination orders cannot be sust ained and are accordingly quashed. Petitioners shall be re-engaged in their resp ective assignments. 27. It is, however, made clear that this order will not debar the au thorities from taking such action as may be considered necessary in accordance w ith law. 28. 29. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No cost.