The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.661 of 2023 (Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Samabari Mohanta … Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa & others … Opposite Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: For Petitioner : Mr.Amitav Tripathy, Advocate. -versus- For Opposite Party No.1 to 4 : Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A For Opposite Party No.5 : Mr. Brundaban Rout, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.661 of 2023 Page 1 of 10 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA 12.11.2024. JUDGMENT Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer; is that therefore prayed this “It Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the letter No.02 dtd.3.1.2023 issued by the Sub-Collector, Balasore, in relating to Anganwadi Helper of Bakhudipada Anganwadi Centre of Baradiha Grama Panchayat under I.C.D.S. Project under Jaleswar Annexure-1 shall not be quashed. If the Opposite Parties fails to show insufficient show cause or show cause shown by the Opp.Parties the said Rule be made absolute by quashing letter No.2 dated 3.1.2023 issued by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (Annexure-1). And pass other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.” such 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that as per notification issued on 03.11.2021 by the Child Development Project Officer, Jaleswar(Opposite Party No.4) for engagement of Anganwadi Helper of W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 2 of 10 Bakhudipada Anganwadi Centre, the Petitioner submitted her candidature and was also selected in the selection process that followed. She was issued with an order of engagement by the Opposite Party No.4 on 12.4.2022, pursuant to which she joined on 18.4.2022. It is stated that after working for about 8 months, the villagers protested against her engagement and also did not allow her to perform her duties and even went to the extent of locking the Centre for which the Centre had to run from a nearby school as per orders of the B.D.O. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner was asked to show cause by letter dtd.19.8.2022 regarding her alleged absence and other irregularities. She duly submitted her reply on 23.8.2022. No further action was taken in the matter. Subsequently by order dated 03.1.2023, the Sub- Collector, Balasore issued an order disengaging the Petitioner as Anganwadi Helper and by setting aside her appointment and directing issuance of fresh notification. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the prayer as quoted above. W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 3 of 10 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 stating the relevant facts and specifically taking the stand that on 9.11.2021, the Mahila Sabha was convened by the Opposite Party No.4 wherein 9 numbers of candidates had contested. The voting was done by majority of women present i.e. 181 out of 203 by putting their signatures and left thumb impressions separately. The Petitioner was selected having received the maximum number of votes i.e. 60. The engagement order was however issued after lapse of five months which is in violation of the Government guidelines. It is further stated that several villagers of the concerned Centre filed grievance petition before the B.D.O., Jaleswar on 5.11.2022 alleging therein that the Mahila Sabha was not conducted properly. Accordingly, the Sub-Collector asked the B.D.O. to enquire into the matter and also to seek explanation from Opposite Party No.4 regarding delay of five months in issuing the engagement order. The CDPO submitted reply but the same was not found to be satisfactory. The BDO conducted enquiry which W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 4 of 10 revealed that proper procedure had not been followed in the Mahila Sabha. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the Opposite Party No.5 who was also one of the candidates. In the counter filed by her, it is stated that the voting was not done properly and that the Mahila Sabha was not held as per proper procedure. The Petitioner managed to obtain the engagement order with political influence at the instance of the Opposite Party No.4. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Mr. B. Rout, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.5. 6. Mr. Tripathy would submit that the Petitioner was disengaged without following the principles of natural justice and in any case only on the basis of allegations regarding the manner of holding of the Mahila Sabha, which was never proved. Mr. Tripathy further submits that even as per own admission of the BDO in his inquiry report, the Petitioner had secured the W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 5 of 10 maximum number of votes being 60 and therefore, had been rightly selected. In so far as the delay in issuing engagement order by the Opposite Party No.4 is concerned, the Petitioner obviously cannot be blamed. 7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate, draws attention of the Court to the enquiry report of the B.D.O., Jaleswar dtd.23.12.2022, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-C/4 to the counter. He submits on such basis that the Sarpanch of the concerned G.P. and some villagers had alleged that there were irregularities during the voting as some of the members had left the meeting and there was allegation that some signatures and L.T.Is. were forged. In view of such irregularities, the Sub-Collector rightly issued the order of disengagement and for issuing a fresh notification. 8. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the private Opposite Party No.5 would argue that in view of the enquiry conducted by the B.D.O., the concerned authority was satisfied that there were several W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 6 of 10 irregularities in the process of selection for which the appointment of the Petitioner was cancelled by order dtd.29.5.2022 of the B.D.O., copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-A/5. Several villagers have submitted objection to the Opposite Party No.4 regarding the irregularities committed in the selection process. Further, a fresh notification has been issued on 09.1.2023. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and have also carefully perused the materials on record. The impugned order dtd.03.1.2023 issued by the Sub- Collector merely mentions that the appointment of the Petitioner as Anganwadi helper has attracted a lot of allegations as well as delay of 5 months in giving appointment letters has not been explained by the then C.D.P.O., Jaleswar. Firstly, as has been rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the delay caused by the Opposite Party No.4 or her inability to satisfactorily explain the same cannot obviously be a ground to draw adverse inference against the Petitioner. Secondly, the impugned order W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 7 of 10 only speaks of ‘lot of allegations’ without specifying the same. In any case there is nothing on record to show that the allegations were proved to the satisfaction of the authority. Reference to the enquiry report dtd. 23.12.2022 (Annexure-C/4) reveals that the Petitioner secured 60 votes while the private Opposite Party No.5, 42 votes. The B.D.O observed in his report as follows; the appointment of Smt. “However, Sombari Mohanta was challenged by the Sarpanch of the concerned G.P. and that some some villagers alleging Mahilas had left the selection center (Bakhudipada A.W.C.) due late commencement of the meeting. Hence, they have not casted their votes. Some are also alleging that their signatures and L.T.Is. are fake.” to 10. Thus, it is only on the allegation of the Sarpanch and some villagers that an adverse report appears to have been submitted. It is stated that some Mahilas had left the selection center due to late commencement of meeting but their identities have not been disclosed. Secondly, it is stated that their signatures and L.T.Is. are fake. How such inference could be drawn is also not forthcoming from the report. Be that as it may, the W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 8 of 10 Petitioner was never called upon to show cause before taking the drastic step of disengaging her. The purported order of cancellation of her appointment dtd.3.5.2022 by the B.D.O. can have no sanctity firstly, for the reason that the B.D.O. is not competent to cancel the appointment of an Anganwadi Helper and secondly, despite issuing such order the Petitioner continued in service till she was ultimately disengaged by order dtd.3.1.2023 to the Sub-Collector. As already stated, there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was granted proper opportunity of hearing before issuing the impugned order. This is clear violation of the principles of natural justice for which the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order under Anenxure-1 is hereby set aside. She is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. It shall be however, open to the authorities to enquire into the allegations after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 9 of 10 including the Petitioner and to take an informed decision basing thereon strictly in accordance with law. …………….……………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Ashok Kumar Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Nov-2024 11:11:52 W.P.(C) No. 661 of 2023 Page 10 of 10