Sujata Nath vs State Of Assam And Ors

The petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 08.10.2010, issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Katigorah ICDS Project, Cachar, by which, her services as Anganwadi Worker has been terminated. The principal ground of challenge is violation of the statutory safeguards stipulated in the service governing the field as well as the principles of natural justice.

I have heard Shri J. Mollah, learned counsel of the petitioner. I have also heard Shri D. Doley, learned State Counsel, representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

Office Note dated 13.06.2017, indicates that the A/D Card in respect of the private respondent No. 5 has been received back and this Court vide order dated 20.08.2018, had deemed that the service upon respondent No. 5 is complete.

The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows.

After a selection for Anganwadi Workers, the petitioner, who had participated in the said selection, was found suitable and vide order dated 13.07.2004, was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in the Centre No. 86 under the Katigorah ICDS Project for a period of 1 (one) year. The said appointment was extended vide order dated 07.03.2005 and the petitioner continued for more than 5 (five) years in her service. In the meantime, the service of the petitioner was also utilized as the Booth Level Officer in the elections held in the year 2008.

On 08.07.2010, an Office Order was issued placing the petitioner under suspension on the allegation that she was found unauthorized pre-absent and also to disobeyed the Office Orders.

The same was followed by a Show Cause Notice dated 19.07.2010, on the allegation that the petitioner had snatched all the records, registers from an Anganwadi helper and the same was not being returned. As a reply, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 09.08.2010, denying the allegations.

Thereafter, with reference to the order of suspension, dated 08.07.2010, a Show Cause Notice dated 16. 09.2010, was issued to the petitioner seeking her response to 8 (eight) numbers of allegations including absence for long time and also in monthly meeting etc. On receipt of the same, the petitioner had submitted her reply on 16.09.2010, denying all the allegations and also prayed to exonerate her from the charges leveled. It appears that the authorities were not satisfied with the reply and immediately thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 08.10.2010, the petitioner was terminated from her service. It was stated in the impugned order that the reply of the petitioner was not full satisfactory at all and she was found guilty of the charges.

At the outset, to a query made by the Court, it is admitted by the parties that the services of the petitioner is governed by the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. Rule 9 of the said Rules lays down the procedure for imposing penalties which, amongst others, include the necessity to hold an enquiry before imposing such penalty. There is no manner of doubt that termination of service is a major penalty and therefore, the requirement of following the pre-condition as laid down in Rule 9 is imperative. In the instant case, after securing the reply from the petitioner on the charges and having come to a finding that such reply was not satisfactory, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to initiate a departmental enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer in which all the procedural safeguards are to be given to the delinquent petitioner which, amongst others, would include taking assistance of a co-worker, explaining the charges, the right to cross-examine the witnesses and also to produce witness of her own. The further requirement under the law in case the enquiry report is against the petitioner is of affording the delinquent employee an opportunity to represent against the findings which are against the delinquent so as to persuade the disciplinary authority not to accept the said findings. The safeguards goes even to the extent that if findings of the enquiry report, which are favourable to a delinquent, is decided to be differed by the disciplinary authority, the requirement of a further notice would be there to ensure that the delinquent is not deprived of a reasonable opportunity of defence.

In the instant case, it appears that on being dissatisfied with the response of the petitioner, the requirement of law has been totally overlooked and on the other hand, the impugned order dated 08.10.2010, has been passed terminating the petitioner from her services.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Manager, Government Branch Press Vs. D.B Belliappa reported in AIR 1979 SC 42 9h,as held that even in case of a temporary government servant, the safeguards prescribed have to be afforded in case a penalty was sought to be imposed.

In the present case, it is seen that the procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1964 has not been followed rendering the impugned order of termination void ab initio. The long period of service rendered by the petitioner which is also a relevant factor has also been totally overlooked by the disciplinary authority before passing the impugned order.

In view of the above discussion, this Court does not have any other option but to set aside and quash the order dated 08.10.2010, passed by the CDPO, Katigora ICDS Project. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated in service with all notional benefits.

However, adopting the principle of ‘no work no pay’, the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.