Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16150 of 2014 Petitioner :- Renu Devi Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.
Pleading between the parties have been exchanged and with their consent, the present petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.
Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.2.2012 issued by the respondent no. 4. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to provide the work and honorarium payment for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti month to month.
By the impugned order, the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarti on payment of honorarium has been terminated on the ground that hundreds of bags of pushtahar were recovered from the house of one Ashok Kumar Gupta, which included 22 bags of pushtahar issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was issued show cause notice to which she submitted her reply contending that she had signed the stock register but since means of transport wrere not available, therefore, pushtahar could not be carried with her.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact the petitioner had received 22 bags of pushtahar under his signature and the same was carried in tempo no. UP-66/T-1504 to her house but she had to go to attend some meeting, therefore, she directed the tempo driver to unload the same at her residence/centre but since he found it locked, he unloaded the tempo at a different centre and under such circumstances the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. Along with rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has sought to annex photographs of the bags containing the manufacture date and name of the village to indicate that she had distributed the same on 13.2.2014 and thereafter the same were not distributed as its distribution was stopped by the authority concerned.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that hundred of bags of pushtahar were recovered and explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and the explanation itself shows that irregularity was committed by the petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
On perusal of the record, I find that only reply is that the petitioner had not lifted pushtahar although she has signed stock register whereas in the affidavit that has been filed as Annexure 7 a different ground is being taken that she in fact had lifted pushtahar but was unloaded by the tempo driver at some other place. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that this affidavit is not the reply to the show cause notice, which has not been annexed with the writ petition and this affidavit is an afterthought. The photographs of the bags filed along with the rejoinder affidavit cannot be considered in this court. Even otherwise, prima facie if they were available at the initial stage, they would have been part of her defence right from the beginning. The services of the petitioner in any case, were found unsatisfactory and as per condition of engagement as Anganwadi Karyakarti, the engagement of the petitioner could have not been terminated if her contractual services on payment of honorarium were found to be satisfactory.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned.
Present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Abhishek