The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 4243 of 2021 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Pramila Behera ...… Petitioner -Versus- State Of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. C. Pattnaik, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. A.R.Dash, Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 22th October, 2024 The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer: “Under such circumstance it is therefore prayed that your Lordship’s would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, call for records and after hearing the parties may be pleased to issue a writ/s/order/s/ direction/s/ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of disengagement passed by the Sub- Collector, Dhenkanal dt-1.11.2018 as well as the Page 1 of 7 order of the Collector Dhenkanal DT- 8.1.2021 and the notification dt- 24.07.2024 made by the CDPO, Gondia, Dhenkanal under Annexures, 3,4 & 5 respectively. And issue a writ of further may mandamus directing the auority to allow her to continue in her service as Anganawadi worker in Kaluria Anganwadi "K " center forth with preferably within a stipulated period as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker by order dated 07.05.2003 of the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhenkanal. While
Legal Reasoning
working as such, an FIR was registered being Gondia P.S. Case No. 133 dated 10.09.2018 under Sections 341/294/323/ 384/366/506/34 of IPC, read with Sections 3 (1)(r) (s) SC & ST (POA) Act alleging therein that a lady (name withheld), who was working as Anganwadi Worker in an Anganwadi centre, had been kidnapped by certain persons named in the FIR. The petitioner’s name did not find place in the FIR but she was arrested by police during investigation and forwarded to the Court. The Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal by order dated 01.11.2018 directed disengagement of the petitioner w.e.f. 12.10.2018 on the ground that she had Page 2 of 7 been arrested on that date and forwarded to the Court and was in custody in connection with the aforementioned case. The petitioner challenged the order of disengagement before the Collector, Dhenkanal which was registered as Anganwadi Misc. Appeal Case No. 3 of 2019. By order dated 08.01.2021, the Collector, after going through the original files and records and upon hearing the petitioner and the other functionaries held that as per Para 2 of Clause IV of the Revised Guidelines for Selection of Anganwadi Workers dated 02.05.2007, an Anganwadi Worker can be disengaged by the Sub- Collector, if any serious and consistent lapse is noticed in her work. Observing thus, the Collector confirmed the order of the Sub-Collector and dismissed the appeal. Said order of the Collector is impugned in the present writ application. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State Opposite Parties reiterating the fact that the petitioner was disengaged because of her involvement in the above referred criminal case. On such basis, the impugned Page 3 of 7 orders passed by the Sub-Collector and the Collector referred above were sought to be justified. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder more or less reiterating the averments made in the writ application and stating that she was arrested only on suspicion as according to the police, she was found to have been speaking with the victim just prior to the occurrence.
Legal Reasoning
5. Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 6. Assailing the impugned orders Mr. Chittaranjan Pattnaik would argue that the revised guidelines referred to by the Collector as also the Sub-Collector do not contain any such provision that an Anganwadi Worker has to be disengaged if she is involved in a criminal case. Mr. Pattnaik, further submits that the criminal case is in question is still pending and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled. 7. Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA while fairly submitting that the criminal case has not been disposed Page 4 of 7 of as yet submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are serious and since the investigation revealed the involvement of the petitioner, she was rightly disengaged. 8. The facts as narrated above are not disputed. Reading of the FIR, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-2 shows that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned therein. However, chargesheet being submitted against the petitioner, she is presently facing trial. It is also borne out from the record that the only ground on which the petitioner was disengaged was her alleged involvement in the criminal case. There seems to be no dispute that the trial of the criminal case is still in progress. It is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot lead to the conclusion that the person concerned is guilty. Unless and until an accused of a criminal offence is held guilty by the competent criminal Court, it cannot be presumed that he or she is guilty at any time before that. This proposition being so basic, no authority is required in its support. As already stated, the only Page 5 of 7 ground on which the petitioner was disengaged is her alleged involvement in the criminal case, in which she has not yet been held guilty. Under such circumstances, taking the drastic step of disengaging her from service would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of the criminal law. For the above reasons therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The orders dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Sub-Collector, Dhenaknal as confirmed in order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal are hereby set aside. The Sub-Collector is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 10. It is however made clear that the petitioner not having rendered any work to the establishment from the date of her disengagement shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the said period but said period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity in service. It is further made clear that the present order of this Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner shall be subject Page 6 of 7 to the final outcome of the criminal case pending against her. Deepak Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 28-Oct-2024 19:46:47 Page 7 of 7