Dismissed

Shobha Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2018SPLA/409/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the special appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition. The appellant, a contractual Anganwadi worker, challenged the termination of her services based on negligence allegations involving child malnourishment and weight discrepancies. The Court upheld the termination, noting the contractual nature of service and the adequacy of the authority's reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed by the lower court was upheld; appeal dismissed.

Shobha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 409 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Shobha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Swati Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶6

This appeal is before us to examine the correctness of the order dated 2.4.2018 passed by the learned single Bench in Writ-A No. 19606 of 2016 dismissing the petition for writ preferred by the appellantpetitioner questioning the correctness of the order dated 16.4.2016 passed by the Child Development Programme Officer, Saidabad, Allahabad.

¶7

In brief factual matrix of the case is that appellant-petitioner while in service with respondents as Anganbari Karyakatri on contractual basis came to be served with a notice to show cause dated 16.9.2015 to explain as to why action be not taken against her for negligence in duties to the extent that on surprise inspection several irregularities were noticed including malnourishment of the children and also a huge difference in weight of the children recorded and actual undertaken. An explanation was submitted by the appellant-petitioner with the assertion that the weight was not measured by the same machine on the basis of which entries were made in the record. The authority competent after considering the explanation submitted considered it appropriate to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant-petitioner, accordingly, she was called on 6.11.2015. While availing the opportunity aforesaid, the appellant-petitioner simply reiterated whatever she stated in her written explanation. It was also stated that the children were not malnourished and there was no negligence in discharging the duties required. The Child Development Programme Officer after availing explanation and also after personally hearing the appellant-petitioner passed an order dated 26.11.2015 terminating the contract of service. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2015 the appellant-petitioner approached this Court by way of filing petition for writ that came to be allowed under an order dated 29.2.2016. Learned single Bench under the

¶8

¶9

order aforesaid set-aside the order dated 26.11.2015 and remitted the matter to the Child Development Programme Officer to reconsider the entire issue and pass fresh order in accordance with law in the light of observations made in the order itself. After getting the order dated 26.11.2015 quashed the appellant-petitioner made a request to the District Programme Officer, Allahabad to allow her to resume the duties, however, the Child Development Programme Officer, Saidabad in the meanwhile considered the entire matter afresh as per directions given by the Writ Court and passed the order dated 16.4.2016. Under the order dated 16.4.2016 the Child Development Programme Officer provided all necessary details about the allegations of negligence against the appellant-petitioner. Child Development Programme Officer found that there was difference of even more than two kilograms in weight of the children and the details of each and every children were described in the order passed by the Child Development Programme Officer. The details were also given about the children who were identified as malnourished. The Child Development Programme Officer after considering each and every fact necessary arrived at the conclusion that the difference in weight of children is too high that could not be there even if two machines were used for the purpose. He also noticed that the children were properly identified as malnourished in red category, general category and partially malnourished category. Seven children were noticed in the red category means they are suffering from acute malnourishment. After taking into consideration all these facts the Child Development Programme Officer maintains its earlier order terminating the service contract. To challenge the order dated 16.4.2016 the appellant-petitioner again approached this Court by way of filing of petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the order dated 2.4.2018. Learned single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ noticed as under;

¶10

"A careful perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner at page

¶11

'34' of the paper book indicates that the petitioner took a plea that she was not present in the Aaganwadi Centre at the time of inspection i.e. on 16.9.2015 as she had left the centre at about 11:15 AM. In the later part of her explanation, it was sought to be submitted by the petitioner that different weighting machine was used by the Block Development Officer. The averments made by the petitioner in the explanation dated 6.10.2015 are self-contradictory. In view of the admitted fact in the first paragraph of the said reply that the petitioner was not present in Anganwadi Centre at the time

¶12

¶13

of surprise inspection, it was not open for her to say that different weighing machine was used by the concerned officer in the inspection.

¶14

So far as the explanation of the petitioner with regard to the weighing machine being non-functional, the order impugned categorically records that same weighing machine was used by the Block Development Officer during the course of inspection on 16.9.2016. Out of 124 children in Anganwadi Centre, weight of 85 children were taken of which weight of 7 children were found tallied with the list prepared by the petitioner whereas rest of the children were found underweight.

¶15

In view of the above noted facts, the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned does not deal with the contention of the petitioner with regard to different weighting machine having been used by the Block Development Officer at the time of inspection cannot be accepted. The findings recorded by the respondent no. 3 in the order impugned with reference to the difference in weight of the children of Anganwadi Centre is substantiated from the record. "

¶16

In appeal the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that learned single Bench failed to appreciate that there was no negligence on the part of appellantpetitioner as respondents themselves erred in conducting inspection in her absence, by using a different weighing machine by treating several children as malnourished without having any material in this regard and further by arriving at the conclusion that the facts averred in the petition for writ were contradict.

¶17

On going through the record we do not find any merit in appeal. At the threshold we would like to state that the appellant-petitioner was working with the respondents purely on contractual basis with applicable honorarium. Such an employee is not entitled to have inquiry by adhering the concept of reasonable opportunity but certainly by adopting the principle of audi alteram partem. In the case in hand before taking action against the appellant-petitioner she was called upon to explain the allegations of negligence and subsequent thereto an opportunity of personal hearing was also allowed. The order passed by the Child Development Programme Officer is adequately reasoned and speaking one. The order dated 26.11.2015 contains all necessary details to substantiate the findings arrived.

¶18

In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any force with the submission that there was violation of principle of natural justice. So far as the plea with regard to use of two different weighing machine is

¶19

¶20

concerned, suffice to mention that the Child Development Programme Officer has given all necessary details in this regard under the order dated 26.11.2015. By going through the order dated 26.11.2015 we have also noticed difference of weight in recorded and actual to a huge limit as much as of about two kilograms. Such a huge difference of weight even on use of difference machines cannot be there. This fact is sufficient to establish that the entries recorded were not correct. The Child Development Programme Officer also noticed the fact about malnourishment. A definite finding by giving names of the children and other details it is stated in the order that at the time of inspection those children were found malnourished to the extent of red category. It was also noticed that though in the register total strength of the children was shown to more than 60 but in fact only eight children were found at the centre.

¶21

In view of whatever stated above, the order passed by the Child Development Programme Officer neither suffers from violation of principle of natural justice nor is in any manner contains any factual error that may warrant interference in the matter. Learned single Bench, as such, rightly dismissed the petition for writ. No interference is warranted.

¶22

Appeal is dismissed , accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.8.2018 Shekhar

¶24

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.] [Govind Mathur, J.]

Shobha Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Devi v. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Bashiyan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Additional Director, Treasury and Pension Vs Uma Shanker Srivastva and 4 Ors.

Kamlesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

sumitra singh Vs state of u.p. and 6 others

vishnu shankar singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another