'Discretion Vested In Project Officer Usurped By Superiority Authority': MP High Orders Reinstatement Of Anganwadi Worker, Cites Jurisdictional Error

Rejecting the plea of alternate remedy made by the State, Justice Anand Pathak held-

…considering all these facts and circumstances of the case and taking cue from the judgments referred above, it is apparently clear that in the present case, not only fundamental rights of petitioner to pursue occupation is violated but the impugned order violates principles of natural justice also. On close scrutiny, it is also apparently clear that discretion vested into Project Officer was virtually usurped by the superiority authority/appellate authority, therefore on this count also, case suffers from jurisdictional error also because jurisdiction is not exercised independently. Therefore, bar of alternative remedy does not come to the rescue of respondents.

It added, "Project Officer acted on the directions of Commissioner and the S.D.O.. He did not exercise the discretion and jurisdiction vested into him independently on his own. He acted at the behest of the superior authority."

The case of the Petitioner was that she had been working as an Anganwadi Worker for more than 5 years when the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena made a surprise visit to the Anganwadi Centre where she was posted but found to be absent at that time. The Commissioner then directed the Project Officer to take instant action against the Petitioner by way of removal of service. Accordingly, she was removed from service. However, instead of challenging her removal of service before the Appellate Authority/Collector, the Petitioner directly approached the Court.

The Petitioner submitted before the Court that her case suffered from non-compliance of principles of natural justice, because she was not granted an opportunity of hearing and that she was terminated on the same day of the inspection. She further argued that the Collector being a subordinate of the Commissioner, approaching the respective authority would've been an empty formality. Furthermore, the second the appeal lied against the Commissioner at whose insistence her services were terminated. Therefore, even for the second appeal, she submitted, she could not have gotten a fair hearing. To justify her decision to directly move the Court, the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Whirlphool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.

Per contra, the State submitted that the Commissioner had no personal bias against the Petitioner and it was her casualness which costed her the job. It also pressed on the plea of alternate remedy, arguing that the petition deserved to be relegated to the Appellate Authority.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court noted that undue haste was shown by authorities in the case of the Petitioner as no opportunity of hearing was granted to her-

When such prompt action is being taken for removal of petitioner then it violates not only principles of natural justice but also the guidelines issued in this regard vide order dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure P-5) issued by Women and Child Development Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh in which provision of opportunity of hearing is provided before removal of post. Said aspect has been considered by this Court in the case of Kansa vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2015 (4) M.P.L.J. 151 in detail. The Coordinate Bench, after considering different judgments of the Apex Court, came to the conclusion that opportunity of hearing is required to be given before terminating the services of Anganwadi Sahayika.

The Court concurred with the apprehension of the Petitioner that approaching the appellate authorities would have been a futile exercise for her as the Collector was subordinate to the Commissioner and that the second appellate authority was the Commissioner himself-

So far as plea of alternative remedy is concerned, where from the facts, it is revealed that appeal would be an empty formality than bar of alternative remedy does not haunt the petitioner. Here, first appeal would go before Collector, Bhind who is subordinate to Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, therefore, filing of appeal before the Collector would be a futile exercise. Not only this, after Collector, second appeal would go before same authority namely Commissioner, Chambal Division. Therefore, person, at whose behest this order has been passed (Commissioner, Chambal Division) would hear the second appeal arising out of order of Collector. Therefore, appeal would not be an effective and efficacious remedy available to petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court opined that the order of removal from service of the Petitioner suffered from vice of opportunity of hearing and violated the fundamental and statutory rights of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the State to reinstate the Petitioner without any back wages.

Case Title : SMT. SEEMA JATAV v THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 156

Click Here To Read/Download Order