MP High Court Suggests State To Consider Categorizing Penalties For Anganwadi Workers Along The Lines Of Service Rules As Major & Minor Punishments

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice A.N. (Kesharwani) observed-

The State Government should think about providing some minor or other major punishments by amending the circular dated 10.07.2007. Even if it is found that misconduct is minor but in the circular dated 10.07.2007 except for termination, no other punishment is there. In every service rule, there are two types of punishments minor and major and under these two broad categories other types of minor and major punishments are provided. Therefore, for these Aganwadi workers and Assistants, there should be a proportionality between misconduct and punishment.

The facts of the case were that the Respondent/Petitioner was working on the post of Anganwadi Worker. She was served with a show-cause notice, calling upon her to submit an explanation over the general allegation of not residing at the headquarters, and absenteeism on the dates of inspection, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice. However, without carrying out an enquiry, as per the guidelines, her services were terminated.

The Respondent/Petitioner had challenged the impugned order before the Writ Court but the same was dismissed with a direction to approach the appellate authority. She accordingly, appealed the impugned order before the appellate authority but the same was dismissed. She then approached the Writ Court again.

The State had submitted before the Writ Court that the Respondent/Petitioner, not being a government employee, was appointed on honorarium. Hence, it was argued that the service rules which apply to the government employees would not apply to her. Consequently, she was rightly terminated under the Clause 4-D of the circular order and the guidelines concerned.

The Writ Court rejected the submissions of the State, holding that principles of natural justice were not followed in the case of the Respondent/Petitioner. With the said observations, the Writ Court allowed the petition and set aside her order of termination.

Challenging the order passed by the Writ Court, the State reiterated their submissions that the Respondent/Petitioner was found negligent in discharging her duties. It was further argued that due to the same, her services were rightfully terminated.

Per contra, the Respondent/Petitioner argued that Clause 4-D of the appointment order specifically provided that only when the delinquent is found guilty after an enquiry, she can be removed. However, she submitted, only notices were issued in her case and a reply was submitted to the effect that she was not keeping well on the said dates of absence and she was terminated. Before her termination, she added, she had rendered 17 years of unblemished service. Hence, she concluded that no interference was called for.

Considering the submissions of the parties, the Court held that the Respondent/Petitioner was terminated from the service only on the basis of an enquiry conducted behind her back. Hence, the Court observed that the Writ Court had rightly allowed the her petition, and therefore the appeal sans merit was liable to be dismissed.

The Court went on to observe that considering the socio-economic conditions of Anganwadi Workers, the years they put in to service and their job profile, termination from service by issuing show-cause notice would be too harsh-

Even though the appointment is not regular appointment like Government employees but this is the only source of income for the women workers in the rural area These Agwanwadi Workers/ Assistants work in the backward rural areas for the execution of beneficiaries schemes of the State government through women and child department. Therefore, after rendering service for one or two decades termination from service by issuing show-cause notice would be too harsh.

Examining Clause 4-D of the circular order, the Court noted that it had two requirements i.e., opportunity for hearing and enquiry-

…it means there are two requirements i.e. No.1. the opportunity of hearing and No.2. if found guilty after enquiry. Hence Agwanwadi Workers/ Assistants can be terminated only after proving the charge after conducting an enquiry. Hence the contention of the learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted that there is no provision for conducting enquiry in the circular dated 1.07.2007. Hence in absence of following the provision, the writ court has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is required.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court upheld the order passed by the Writ Court and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. VERSUS SMT. NIRMALA RAWAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 112

Click Here To Read/Download Order