Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14918 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Archana Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivanand Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is the widow and was appointed as Anganwari Karyakatri on 03.12.2008. Her engagement has been discontinued vide order impugned on 01.08.2019, which records that petitioner's services have not been satisfactory inasmuch as she has not performed duties assigned to her. This order has been passed by the District Programme Officer, Etawah and is challenged in this petition.
Records reveal that an inspection of the centre was carried on 01.04.2019 by the District Child Development Project Officer (DCDPO). The officer apparently ill-treated the petitioner on the ground that her working was not satisfactory. A complaint was made by the petitioner before the District Level Officer stating that DCDPO demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- and also called the petitioner to visit at his residence. Again on 09.05.2019 a letter was sent to the District Magistrate stating that petitioner is being harassed by the DCDPO. Noting apparently was done on petitioner's complaint. However, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Programme Officer on 20.07.2019 and she was required to appear before the authorities on 26.07.2019. The order impugned records that petitioner has been heard and her explanation has not been found satisfactory.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
With the consent of counsel for the parties this petition has been taken up for hearing finally, at the admission stage itself.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record.
Facts of the present case are somewhat disturbing. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 and continued to work without any complaint for more than 11 years. It is undisputed that an inspection was made on 01.04.2019 by the DCDPO. The petitioner made a specific complaint to the Chief Development Officer stating that all relevant registers were taken by the officer in his car at the time of inspection and illegal gratification has been demanded from her. It is also stated that officer misbehaved with the petitioner and she was asked to visit at his residence. Filing of this application is not disputed in the counter affidavit. A subsequent complaint on similar lines has been made to the District Magistrate highlighting the fact that petitioner is widow and she has been harassed by the DCDPO. There is nothing on record to show that competent authority got the petitioner's complaint verified by any independent agency/officer. The allegations levelled by the petitioner were serious and were required to have been enquired into. What appears, however, is that instead of petitioner's complaint being enquired into, a fresh inspection was conducted in which certain shortcomings were pointed out. The show cause notice issued to petitioner makes a strange reading and is extracted hereinafter:
"आपकका आआं गनबकाडडी कके न्द्र जजो सआंचकाललित पका०ववि० अशजोक कक मकार नगर वद्वितडीय मके सआंचकाललित हहै कका आवकस्मक वनरडीक्षण क्रमशशः बकालि वविककास पररयजोजनका अलधिककारडी , जसविआंतनगर कके द्विकारका वदिनकाआंक 01.03.2019 कजो वकयका गयका, क्षकेतडीय मकख्य सकेवविकका शडीमतडी अआंजजू रकाठठौर कके द्विकारका वदिनकाआंक 29.05.2019 कजो वकयका गयका तथका सआंयक्त वनरडीक्षण बकालि वविककास पररयजोजनका अलधिककारडी महकेविका वि बढपकरका कके द्विकारका वदिनकाआंक 29.06.2019 कजो वकयका गयका थका। लजसमम वनरत र कवमयकाआं पकायडी गयडी ह। तडीननों वनरडीक्षण मम पकायडी गयडी कवमयकाआं मके आप वविभकागडीय ककायर्यो मके रूवच नहडी लिके रहडी ह। भकारत सरककार ककी महत्विपजूणर यजोजनकाएआं जहैसके - अन्नपकासन, गजोदिभरकाई इत्यकादिडी गवतवविलधियनों कका ककायर उनकके द्विकारका नहडी वकयका जका रहका ह। पजोषकाहकार स्टजोक पआंलजकका वि ववितरण पआंलजकका सहडी नहडी पकायडी गयडी। उपसस्थवत पआंलजकका मम जजो लिकाभकाथर्थी पजडीकक त हहै , उनकका मठौकके पर सत्यकापन नहडी करका सककी। लजससके स्पष्ट हहै वक आप शकासककीय ककायर्यो कजो करनके मम पजूणरतशः अस्मथर ह।ह आपककी मकानदिकेय पर चयन हकेतक वनगरत शकासनकादिकेश सआं० -1606/60-2-12/1(22)/10 टडी०सडी० वदिनकाआंक 04.09.2012 कके पस्तर-12 सकाथ हडी वनदिकेशकालिय बकाज वविककास सकेविका एविआं पकष्टकाहकार उ०प० , लिखनऊ पतकाआंक सडी-235(1)/बका०ववि०परर०/स्थका०-4-29/2012 वदिनकाआंक 20 फरविरडी, 2013 मके मकानदिकेय सकेविका सके पकथक करनके सके पजूविर उन्हम सकनविकाई कका अविसर पदिकान करनके हकेतक लजलिकालधिककारडी महजोदिय सके अनकमजोदिन वदिनकाआंक 19.07.2019 कके क्रम अपकजो अपनका पक्ष रखनके हकेतक वदिनकाआंक 26.07.2019 कनों अपरकान्हशः 2:00 बजके अधिजोहस्तकाक्षरडी कक्ष मम उपसस्थत हजोनका सकवनसशचत करगके डी। पक ् ष कज ो सकननक े कक े बकाद ि आपकक ी मकानदिकेय सकेविक ा कजो समकाप ् त करनक े कक ा असन्तम वनणरय ललियक ा जकानक ा उवचत व ि नहैसवगरक न्यकाय कक े अनकरूप हजोगका।"
The above show cause notice states that in the inspection conducted on 01.03.2019 and by the Regional Mukhya Sevika on 29.05.2019 various shortcomings were found and petitioner is not taking interest in performing her duties. The charges levelled in the show cause notice are absolutely vague and do not constitute any definite charge capable of response by the employee. The show cause notice further records that petitioner is not capable of performing the work. It has further been observed that before terminating petitioner's service an opportunity of hearing is to be given and after hearing her an order would be passed. This clearly shows that the authorities had apparently made up their mind to terminate the services of petitioner and issuance of the show cause notice was an empty formality. It is stated that when petitioner appeared before the authorities she was not heard. The order impugned, however, records that petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory and the charges were very serious. What exactly is the reason for not accepting her reply has not been recited in the order impugned. Except for the vague allegations there is nothing on record to show that petitioner's working and conduct was deficient. This Court finds substance in the petitioner's contention that merely because she made a complaint against the officer, who inspected the centre that she has been victimized. Even otherwise, no fact finding enquiry has been conducted nor any enquiry report has been given to petitioner and merely on the basis of vague allegations the order impugned has been passed. Impugned action, therefore, is found to be vitiated by malice in law apparent on face of the record inasmuch as neither any specific notice was given to the petitioner nor she was given any adequate opportunity to defend herself. Petitioner's allegation of harassment meted to her by the respondents has also not been adverted to. In such circumstances petitioner's termination by the District Programme Officer is found to be absolutely arbitrary and unsustainable.
Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 01.08.2019 is quashed. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service. The District Magistrate, Etawah shall examine petitioner's complaint annexed alongwith writ petition and after getting the facts ascertained by an independent officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate it shall be open for him to pass afresh order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Ashok Kr.