Principles of natural justice to be followed in all cases regarding termination: Chhattisgarh High Court
Any person who is being terminated must be given a show cause notice and a chance to be heard. Not following this would make the termination order void and the person is entitled for reinstatement. This was held by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal in the case of Smt. Indira Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. [Writ Petition (S) No.7669 of 2011] on the 25th of August 2021, before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The brief facts of the case are, the petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Aanganwadi Karyakarta in Aanganwadi Centre No.42 in selection process on 21-5- 2007 which she joined on 8-6-2007. Thereafter, she was served with notice dated 17-2-2010 which she replied, but ultimately her services were terminated on 17-8-2010 by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara which she questioned by filing appeal in terms of circular dated 2-4-2008 before the Additional Collector, Durg, but by impugned order dated 28-10-2011 (Annexure P-1), the learned Additional Collector dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the CMO, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the procedure prescribed in circular dated 2-4-2008 terminating the services of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has not been followed and that has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore the order of the CMO, Municipal Council, Dallirajhara and that of the Additional Collector deserve to be set aside the petitioner be reinstated on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta. Through this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order and prays for it to be quashed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in order to remove the petitioner, who was a duly selected Aanganwadi Karyakarta, the procedure prescribed in circular dated 2-4-2008 (clause 13) was imperative and by merely giving show cause notice, her services could not have been terminated. As such, the order of the CMO is absolutely bad in law, but in appeal preferred in accordance with clause 11 of the said circular, the Additional Collector also did not look into the same and dismissed the appeal which is ex facie illegal and bad in law and therefore the impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated along with back- wages. The counsel for the respondents supported the order and held it to be valid as per the order issued by the CMO. The learned judge heard both the parties and observed the order issued by the CMO where, detailed procedure has been prescribed for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta which includes enquiry by supervisor at the instance of the Project Officer and in case of embezzlement or gross irregularity, charges have to be served to the delinquent Aanganwadi Karyakarta giving 15 days’ time to submit reply and after receipt of reply, it should be placed before the Committee of Janpad Panchayat/Municipal Council which is competent to recruit and thereafter, order has to be passed by the CMO, Janpad Panchayat/Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. Likewise, as per clause 13.2 of the said circular, if it is not the case of embezzlement or gross irregularity, then warning has to be given.
1AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPURWrit PetitionNo.76611Smt. Indira Patel W o B.C. Patel aged about 37 years OccupationTerminated Aganwadi Worker R o Ward No.24 Rani Laxmibai Ward Dallirajhara New Bus Stand District DurgPetitionerVersus1.State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Women and ChildDevelopment Department D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur District RaipurRespondents For Petitioner:Mr. Awadh Tripathi Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 State: Mr. Aditya Sharma Panel Lawyer.For Respondent No.5:Mr. Y.S. Thakur Advocate.For Respondent No.6:None present though served. Hon ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. AgrawalOrder On Board25 08 20211.Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through videoconferencing.2.The petitioner calls in question legality validity and correctness oforder dated 28 10 2011passed by respondent No.3 Additional Collector Durg whereby order dated 17 8 2010passed by respondent No.5 Chief Municipal Officer MunicipalCouncil Dallirajhara District Durg terminating the services of thepetitioner from the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has been affirmedby the learned Additional Collector.3.The petitioner was duly selected and appointed as AanganwadiKaryakarta in Aanganwadi Centre No.42 in selection process on 21 5 2007 which she joined on 8 6 2007. Thereafter she was served withnotice dated 17 2 2010 which she replied but ultimately her serviceswere terminated on 17 8 2010 by the Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Council Dallirajhara which she questioned by filing appealin terms of circular dated 2 4 2008 before the Additional Collector Durg but by impugned order dated 28 10 2011thelearned Additional Collector dismissed the appeal affirming the orderof the CMO Municipal Council Dallirajhara which is sought to bechallenged in this writ petition on the ground that the procedureprescribed in circular dated 2 4 2008 terminating the services ofAanganwadi Karyakarta has not been followed and that has causedserious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore the order of the CMO Municipal Council Dallirajhara and that of the Additional Collectordeserve to be set aside the petitioner be reinstated on the post ofAanganwadi Karyakarta.4.Return has been filed by the State respondents No.1 to 4 supportingthe orders impugned passed by the CMO and the Additional Collector.5.No return has been filed by respondent No.5 as well as by respondentNo.6.6.Mr. Awadh Tripathi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in order to remove the petitioner who was a duly 3selected Aanganwadi Karyakarta the procedure prescribed in circulardated 2 4 2008was imperative and by merely giving showcause notice her services could not have been terminated. As such the order of the CMO is absolutely bad in law but in appeal preferredin accordance with clause 11 of the said circular the AdditionalCollector also did not look into the same and dismissed the appealwhich is ex facie illegal and bad in law and therefore the impugnedorders be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated along with back wages.7.Mr. Aditya Sharma learned State counsel would support theimpugned orders which in turn was adopted by Mr. Y.S. Thakur learned counsel for respondent No.5 also.8.None present for respondent No.6 though served.9.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered theirsubmissions made herein above and also went through the recordwith utmost circumspection.10.Admittedly and undisputedly the petitioner was duly selected asAanganwadi Karyakarta she was removed from service by orderdated 17 8 2010 by respondent No.5 and appeal against the order ofremoval has been dismissed by the Additional Collector. Theprocedure for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakarta has been prescribedby the State Government by circular dated 2 4 2008. Clause 13 ofcircular dated 2 4 2008 prescribes the procedure for removal ofAanganwadi Karyakarta which states as under: 13dk ZdrkZvksa@lgkf dkvksa dks in ls gVkus dh izfdz k%&13 1fdlh vkaxuckM+h dk ZdrkZ@lgkf dk ds lanHkZ esa f’kdk r izkIr gksus ij ckyfodkl ifj kstuk vf kdkjh }kjk lacaf kr Ik Zos{kd ls tkap djokdj izfrosnuizkIr fd k tk sxk o izkIr izfrosnu esa xq.k nks"kksa dk ijh{k.k dj f’kdk r lgh 4ik s tkus ij fn fdlh izdkj dk xcu vFkok xaHkhj vfu ferrk dk izdj.kcurk gS rks lacaf kr dk ZdrkZ@lgkf dk dks ml ij ifjyf{kr gq vkjksiksa lsLi"V voxr djkrs gq viuk i{k j[kus dk volj iznku fd s tkus gsrq iUnzgfnol dk le iznku fd k tkosxk oa mRrj izkIr gkssus ij iqu% xq.k nks"kksa dkijh{k.k dj U k ksfpr fu.kZ ysrs gq fn in ls i`Fkd fd k tkuk vko’ d gksrks in ls i`Fkd fd s tkus laca kh izLrko tkWp izfrosnu lfgr tuiniapk r@uxjh fudk dh ml lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd k tkosxk tks p u dsfy s l{ke gSA mDr lfefr ds vuqeksnu gksus ds mijkar eq[ dk Zikyuvf kdkjh] tuin iapk r@vk qDr uxj fuxe@eq[ uxj ikfydk vf kdkjh }kjkin ls i`Fkd djus ds vkns’k izlkfjr fd s tkosaxsA 13 2 fn xcu vFkok xaHkhj vfu ferrk dk izdj.k ifjyf{kr ugha gqvk gS oa ek=lkekU ykijokfg kW ifjyf{kr gqbZ gSa rks lacaf kr cky fodkl ifj kstuk vf kdkjh}kjk izFke nks ckj lacaf kr dk ZdrkZ@lgkf dk dks lpsr djrs gq psrkouh tkjhdh tkosxh oa r`rh ckj Hkh lq kkj u vkus ij ml ij Li"V vkjksi vkjksfirdjrs gq lquokbZ dk vafre volj iznku fd k tkosxk oa izkIr Li"Vhdj.k ijU k ksfpr :i ls fopkj djrs gq fn in ls i`Fkd fd k tkuk vko’ d gks rksrn~uqlkj mijksDr df.Mdk 13 1 vuqlkj tuin iapk r@uxjh fudk dksizLrko izLrqr dj lsok lekIr djus dh dk Zokgh dh tkosxhA fn xaHkhjdnkpkj@vfu ferrk dh f’kdk r gksus ij Hkh tuin iapk r@uxjh fudk dh p u lfefr dk ZdrkZ@lgkf dk dks in ls izFkd djus laca kh izLrko izLrqrdjus ds rhu lIrkg dh le kof k ds Hkhrj ikfjr ugha djrh gS oa ifj kstukvf kdkjh mDr dk ZdrkZ@lgkf dk dks tufgr esa in ls i`Fkd fd k tkukvko’ d ekurs gSa rks cky fodkl ifj kstuk vf kdkjh izdj.k ewY kadu lfefr dsle{k j[ksaxsA cky fodkl ifj kstuk vf kdkjh ds }kjk ewY kadu lfefr ds izLrkols ftyk dk Zdze vf kdkjh ds vuqeksnu mijkar in ls i`Fkd fd k tk ldsxkA 13 3ofj"B vf kdkfj ksa vFkkZr ftyk dk Zdze vf kdkjh vFkok muls mPp vf kdkfj ksads fujh{k.k ds nkSjku fLFkfr vlarks"ktud ik s tkus ij fn muds foosd vuqlkjdk ZdrkZ dks in ls i`Fkd fd k tkuk vko’ d ik k tkrk gS rks bl gsrq lacaf krvf kdkjh vius fujh{k.k rFkk vfu ferrkvksa dk foLr`r lqLi"V izfrosnu rS kj djin ls i`Fkd djus gsrq mYys[k djrs gq eq[ dk Zikyu vf kdkjh tuin iapk rvkSj fn uxjh {ks= gS rks vk qDr uxj fuxe@eq[ uxj ikfydk vf kdkjh dksizsf"kr dj nsaxs oa tuin iapk r oa uxjh fudk }kjk df.Mdk 13 1 oa 13 2vuqlkj dk Zokgh dh tkosxhA13 4in ls i`FkDdj.k ds vkns’k ds fo:) vihy dafMdk 11 ds izko kkuksa ds vuqlkjdh tk ldsxhA13 5 fn dksbZ vkaxuckM+h dk ZdrkZ@lgkf dk fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds yxkrkj d ekgls vf kd vof k rd vuqifLFkr jgrh gS rks ifj kstuk vf kdkjh vuqifLFkfr dsdkj.k ij Ik Zos{kd ls d tkap izfrosnu izkIr dj dafMdk 13 1] 13 2 ds vuq:ilsok lekIr djus dh dk Zokgh djsaxsA 13 6vkaxuckM+h dk ZdrkZ@lgkf dk dh lsok dh vf kdre mez 62 o"kZ iw.kZ gksus ij 5ifj kstuk vf kdkjh mUgsa d ekg iwoZ fyf[kr lwpuk nsdj lsok lekIr djus laca kh vkns’k izlkfjr djsaxsA bl gsrq dafMdk 13 1] 13 2 ds vuq:i tuiniapk r@uxjh fudk dh p u lfefr ls vuqeksnu ysus dh vko’ drk ughagksxhALi"Vhdj.k%&mijksDrkuqlkj in ls i`Fkd djus dh izfdz k esa ftl vH FkhZ dhfu qfDr ftl izfdz k ls gqbZ gksxh mlh izfdz k ls mlh izfdz k ds rgr fofgrlfefr o vuqeksnu ds vuqlkj mls in ls i`Fkd fd k tkosxk vFkkZr fn tuiniapk r@uxjh fudk ls p u gqvk gS rks mlh fudk ds ek e ls dafMdk13 1 vuqlkj dk Zokgh djrs gq in ls i`Fkd fd k tkosxk oa ftl vH FkhZ dkp u ewY kadu lfefr rFkk ftyk dk Zdze vf kdkjh ds vuqeksnu ls gqvk gksxkmls rn~uqlkj gh ewY kadu lfefr o ftyk dk Zdze vf kdkjh ds vuqeksnu ls inls i`Fkd fd k tkosxkA 11.A careful perusal of the aforesaid clause would show that detailedprocedure has been prescribed for removal of Aanganwadi Karyakartawhich includes enquiry by supervisor at the instance of the ProjectOfficer and in case of embezzlement or gross irregularity chargeshave to be served to the delinquent Aanganwadi Karyakarta giving 15days time to submit reply and after receipt of reply it should be placedbefore the Committee of Janpad Panchayat Municipal Council whichis competent to recruit and thereafter order has to be passed by theCMO Janpad Panchayat Commissioner Municipal Corporation.Likewise as per clause 13.2 of the said circular if it is not the case ofembezzlement or gross irregularity then warning has to be given. 12.Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaidrequirement of conducting enquiry it appears that vide Annexure P 6 the petitioner was only given notice dated 17 2 2010 directing her toappear in the office which she replied on 22 2 2010 and asked forpermission to join and in the meanwhile departmental report was alsosubmitted against the petitioner which is available at page 16 & 17 ofthe writ petition but it appears that thereafter no procedure has beenfollowed as indicated in clause 13.1 of circular dated 2 4 2008 by 6serving copy of charges along with materials giving 15 days notice toreply and it also appears that on 13 8 2010 the Project Officerreferred the matter to the Municipal Council on the basis of resolutionin the meeting of President in Council dated 13 8 2010 andaccordingly order dated 17 8 2010 was passed. As such theprocedure prescribed in clause 13.1 of circular dated 2 4 2008 has notbeen followed while terminating the services of the petitioner whichhas caused serious prejudice to her. It appears that even no showcause notice for termination along with material which has beencollected departmentally by the Project Officer has been served to thepetitioner and no minimum opportunity to her to defend herself hasbeen afforded and she has been terminated which she questioned interms of clause 11 of the said circular but the learned AdditionalCollector misdirected himself by not considering her case in rightperspective and without considering the requirement of holdingenquiry and giving opportunity in terminating the services of thepetitioner who was a duly selected and appointed AanganwadiKaryakarta in terms of clause 13.1 of circular dated 2 4 2008 theimpugned order has been passed affirming the order of the CMO Municipal Council Dallirajhara removing the petitioner from the saidpost. The impugned orders are ex facie illegal and in teeth of clause13 of circular dated 2 4 2008 and also in violation of the principles ofnatural justice. 13.Accordingly the order dated 17 8 2010 removing the petitioner fromthe post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta and the order dated dated 28 10 2011 affirming the said order of removal of the petitioner are herebyquashed. The petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement. In orderto claim back wages the petitioner is at liberty to move the appointing 7authority within six weeks from today which will be considered by theappointing authority in accordance with law. However the officialrespondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law but thisshould not be considered as a mandate to initiate disciplinaryproceeding unless it is expedient in the interest of justice to bedecided by the competent authority. 14.The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Noorder as to cost(s). Sd JudgeSoma 