High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Prem Lata Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko.Andors Counsel for Petitioner :- Karunakar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti on 02.06.2008 and she joined her duties on 04.06.2008 and was performing her duties on the said post till a complaint was made by one Raghunayak Prasad Dixit who was enimical towards petitioner. In the complaint it was stated that petitioner does not attend to her official duties and is negligent in discharge of her duties and consequently her services deserve to be dispensed with.

3. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.07.2008 recording the fact that a complaint has been received against petitioner and also that Child Development Project Officer, Gonda had gone on 02.07.2008, 09.07.2008 and 18.07.2008 to verify the veracity of the said complaint and it was found that the petitioner was absent on all three days and accordingly he concluded that the petitioner is negligent in discharge of her duties and beneficiaries of the scheme of the Government could not be benefitted in the manner in which the petitioner is working and accordingly was of the opinion that petitioner does not deserves to be allowed further retention in service and accordingly issued show cause notice as to why her services be not dispensed with.

4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and only an order of termination dated 02.08.2008 was received reiterating the contents of the show cause notice and stated that petitioner had not filed any reply objecting to the show cause notice and consequently, was of the opinion that contents of the compliant were correct and terminated services of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 02.08.2008, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 51 of 2010, which writ petition was disposed of by this Court remanding the matter back to the District Magistrate granting opportunity to pass fresh order after hearing the parties and inspecting the documents. Aforesaid order was passed considering the grounds raised by the petitioner that she was able to produce the attendance register which was duly verified that she was present on all the three days and according to the petitioner said fact of she being absent from duty was incorrect and false.

6. In compliance of directions of this Court dated 29.05.2011, passed in Writ Petition No. 51 of 2010, the District Magistrate, Gonda passed fresh order dated 22.01.2014, again reiterating previous order and terminating services of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2620 of 2014, amongst other grounds the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that no prior approval of District Magistrate was obtained prior to passing the order of termination. Learned Standing Counsel was also not able to contradict the stand taken by the petitioner and this Court was of the clear view that order of termination dated 02.08.2008 has been passed without taking prior approval of the District Magistrate and accordingly set aside the order of termination dated 02.08.2008 as well as 22.01.2014 with consequential benefits. The Court further granted liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law in terms of letter dated 19.06.2008.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in order dated 19.06.2008, details procedure has been prescribed with regard to termination of Anganwadi Karyakarti wherein it is provided that concerned Child Development Project Officer would consider all the evidence with regard to misconduct or complaint against Anganwadi Karyakarti and forward the recommendation to the District Programme Officer and approval of the Chief Development Officer/District Magistrate would be taken before terminating services.

9. It is in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 27.05.2019, that the respondents issued letter dated 18.11.2019 to the petitioner asking her to be present before the Child Development Project Officer on 23.11.2019, in case she wants to place any material in her defense. It is stated that the petitioner appeared on 23.11.2019 and presented a copy of the writ petition which was preferred by her and proceedings concluded resulting in the impugned order of termination again being passed on 04.12.2019.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly, there was no material part from the complaint that the petitioner was not attending her office on three days and there was no other material to conclude that she was negligent in discharge of her duties and apart from the above, despite the writ petition of the petitioner having been allowed on 27.05.2019 and as per counter affidavit even the post was vacant, still the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court before terminating the services of the petitioner.

11. It is submitted that on previous occasion the termination order was set aside with consequences to follow and the respondents did not allowed the petitioner to join nor paid her wages/honorarium before passing the impugned order and accordingly on this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

12. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that perusal of impugned order would indicate that the petitioner has been afforded full opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. He further submits that this fact is not disputed by the petitioner that she appeared before the authority on 23.11.2019 and it is only pursuant to opportunity having been afforded to her that the impugned order has been passed and submits that there is no infirmity in the same.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. It is noticed that proceedings in the present case were initiated on the basis of complaint where allegations have been only with regard to dereliction of duty and petitioner not attending her office and due to which implementation of the scheme of the Government has been adversely effected. The Child Development Protect Officer visited the office of petitioner on 02.07.2008, 19.07.2008 and 18.07.2008 on which dates the petitioner was found to be absent. Undisputedly, the petitioner had given copy of writ petition asserting that she was available on all the three dates and has placed attendance register duly recorded and signed by her. The respondent no.5 has neither considered any material but merely recorded that the averments made in the complaint seems to be correct and accordingly impugned order of termination has been passed. No reason have been assigned for not accepting the version of the petitioner nor is there any consideration with regard to the stand taken by the petitioner, even though copy of the writ petition was presented before respondent no. 5 and there in version of petitioner was stated in detail.

15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary not having considered the version of the petitioner. Undisputedly, even though the petitioner has submitted copy of writ petition were her version and all the annexures to support her version were annexed, should have been examined by the Child Development Project Officer, but he failed to discharge his duty in this regard and it cannot be said that he acted fairly and reasonably. He in the impugned order only narrated sequence of events including the orders passed by this Court previously and there is no reason given for terminating services of the petitioner.

16. In the light of above, this Court finds that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the respondents have not taken into account the defense taken by the petitioner and no reasons have been indicated for passing the impugned order.

17. Apart from above, this Court finds that action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner merely on account of the fact that she was absent for three days, is disproportionate, even though this fact is disputed and accordingly for reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that impugned order dated 04.12.2019 deserves to be quashed.

18. This Court is concerned with the fact that respondents have failed to comply with the judgment of this Court dated 27.05.2019, when the order of termination of petitioner was set aside with consequences to follow. It was incumbent upon the respondents to fully comply with the order in its letter and spirit. It is not only that the Court had directed the respondents to pass fresh order, but once termination order was set aside, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have reinstate the petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits.

19. It is not that only when contempt petition is filed only then the State is mandated to comply wit the orders of this Court. Merely on receipt of the orders passed by the superior Courts the respondents are under mandate to comply with the same forthwith in letter and spirit. Accordingly, this Court deprecates the action of respondent no. 5 in not complying with the directions of this Court dated 27.05.2019, despite the fact that even in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it was stated that post was vacant.

20. In the light of above, action of respondents is held to be illegal and arbitrary. The impugned order dated 04.12.2019, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits.

21. Considering the fact that the Child Development Project Officer did not comply with the order of this Court, respondent no. 2 is directed to initiate inquiry in this regard and conclude the same expeditiously, say within three months and submit the inquiry report to this Court through the Senior Registrar of this Court.

22. With aforesaid directions the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Smt. Prem Lata Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Evam Pustahar Lko.Andors Counsel for Petitioner :- Karunakar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti on 02.06.2008 and she joined her duties on 04.06.2008 and was performing her duties on the said post till a complaint was made by one Raghunayak Prasad Dixit who was enimical towards petitioner. In the complaint it was stated that petitioner does not attend to her official duties and is negligent in discharge of her duties and consequently her services deserve to be dispensed with.

3. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.07.2008 recording the fact that a complaint has been received against petitioner and also that Child Development Project Officer, Gonda had gone on 02.07.2008, 09.07.2008 and 18.07.2008 to verify the veracity of the said complaint and it was found that the petitioner was absent on all three days and accordingly he concluded that the petitioner is negligent in discharge of her duties and beneficiaries of the scheme of the Government could not be benefitted in the manner in which the petitioner is working and accordingly was of the opinion that petitioner does not deserves to be allowed further retention in service and accordingly issued show cause notice as to why her services be not dispensed with.

4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and only an order of termination dated 02.08.2008 was received reiterating the contents of the show cause notice and stated that petitioner had not filed any reply objecting to the show cause notice and consequently, was of the opinion that contents of the compliant were correct and terminated services of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 02.08.2008, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 51 of 2010, which writ petition was disposed of by this Court remanding the matter back to the District Magistrate granting opportunity to pass fresh order after hearing the parties and inspecting the documents. Aforesaid order was passed considering the grounds raised by the petitioner that she was able to produce the attendance register which was duly verified that she was present on all the three days and according to the petitioner said fact of she being absent from duty was incorrect and false.

6. In compliance of directions of this Court dated 29.05.2011, passed in Writ Petition No. 51 of 2010, the District Magistrate, Gonda passed fresh order dated 22.01.2014, again reiterating previous order and terminating services of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2620 of 2014, amongst other grounds the petitioner has assailed the said order on the ground that no prior approval of District Magistrate was obtained prior to passing the order of termination. Learned Standing Counsel was also not able to contradict the stand taken by the petitioner and this Court was of the clear view that order of termination dated 02.08.2008 has been passed without taking prior approval of the District Magistrate and accordingly set aside the order of termination dated 02.08.2008 as well as 22.01.2014 with consequential benefits. The Court further granted liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law in terms of letter dated 19.06.2008.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in order dated 19.06.2008, details procedure has been prescribed with regard to termination of Anganwadi Karyakarti wherein it is provided that concerned Child Development Project Officer would consider all the evidence with regard to misconduct or complaint against Anganwadi Karyakarti and forward the recommendation to the District Programme Officer and approval of the Chief Development Officer/District Magistrate would be taken before terminating services.

9. It is in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 27.05.2019, that the respondents issued letter dated 18.11.2019 to the petitioner asking her to be present before the Child Development Project Officer on 23.11.2019, in case she wants to place any material in her defense. It is stated that the petitioner appeared on 23.11.2019 and presented a copy of the writ petition which was preferred by her and proceedings concluded resulting in the impugned order of termination again being passed on 04.12.2019.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly, there was no material part from the complaint that the petitioner was not attending her office on three days and there was no other material to conclude that she was negligent in discharge of her duties and apart from the above, despite the writ petition of the petitioner having been allowed on 27.05.2019 and as per counter affidavit even the post was vacant, still the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court before terminating the services of the petitioner.

11. It is submitted that on previous occasion the termination order was set aside with consequences to follow and the respondents did not allowed the petitioner to join nor paid her wages/honorarium before passing the impugned order and accordingly on this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

12. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that perusal of impugned order would indicate that the petitioner has been afforded full opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. He further submits that this fact is not disputed by the petitioner that she appeared before the authority on 23.11.2019 and it is only pursuant to opportunity having been afforded to her that the impugned order has been passed and submits that there is no infirmity in the same.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. It is noticed that proceedings in the present case were initiated on the basis of complaint where allegations have been only with regard to dereliction of duty and petitioner not attending her office and due to which implementation of the scheme of the Government has been adversely effected. The Child Development Protect Officer visited the office of petitioner on 02.07.2008, 19.07.2008 and 18.07.2008 on which dates the petitioner was found to be absent. Undisputedly, the petitioner had given copy of writ petition asserting that she was available on all the three dates and has placed attendance register duly recorded and signed by her. The respondent no.5 has neither considered any material but merely recorded that the averments made in the complaint seems to be correct and accordingly impugned order of termination has been passed. No reason have been assigned for not accepting the version of the petitioner nor is there any consideration with regard to the stand taken by the petitioner, even though copy of the writ petition was presented before respondent no. 5 and there in version of petitioner was stated in detail.

15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary not having considered the version of the petitioner. Undisputedly, even though the petitioner has submitted copy of writ petition were her version and all the annexures to support her version were annexed, should have been examined by the Child Development Project Officer, but he failed to discharge his duty in this regard and it cannot be said that he acted fairly and reasonably. He in the impugned order only narrated sequence of events including the orders passed by this Court previously and there is no reason given for terminating services of the petitioner.

16. In the light of above, this Court finds that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the respondents have not taken into account the defense taken by the petitioner and no reasons have been indicated for passing the impugned order.

17. Apart from above, this Court finds that action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner merely on account of the fact that she was absent for three days, is disproportionate, even though this fact is disputed and accordingly for reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that impugned order dated 04.12.2019 deserves to be quashed.

18. This Court is concerned with the fact that respondents have failed to comply with the judgment of this Court dated 27.05.2019, when the order of termination of petitioner was set aside with consequences to follow. It was incumbent upon the respondents to fully comply with the order in its letter and spirit. It is not only that the Court had directed the respondents to pass fresh order, but once termination order was set aside, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have reinstate the petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits.

19. It is not that only when contempt petition is filed only then the State is mandated to comply wit the orders of this Court. Merely on receipt of the orders passed by the superior Courts the respondents are under mandate to comply with the same forthwith in letter and spirit. Accordingly, this Court deprecates the action of respondent no. 5 in not complying with the directions of this Court dated 27.05.2019, despite the fact that even in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it was stated that post was vacant.

20. In the light of above, action of respondents is held to be illegal and arbitrary. The impugned order dated 04.12.2019, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits.

21. Considering the fact that the Child Development Project Officer did not comply with the order of this Court, respondent no. 2 is directed to initiate inquiry in this regard and conclude the same expeditiously, say within three months and submit the inquiry report to this Court through the Senior Registrar of this Court.

22. With aforesaid directions the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench