Smt. Susheela Devi v. State of U.P.Thru It Director Bal Vikas Sewa Awam Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024WRIA/1912/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Karyakatri; termination of contractual services; ex-parte inquiry by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Utraula; violation of natural justice; no notice to employee; quashing of termination order dated 11.02.2014; liberty to pass fresh order; no honorarium for interim period; contractual employee; Writ-A; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 11.02.2014 quashed. Consequences to follow except payment of honorarium for the period the petitioner remained out of employment; it is open to the respondents to pass a fresh order against the petitioner in accordance with law. ¶¶19

Smt. Susheela Devi Vs State of U.P.Thru It Director Bal Vikas Sewa Awam Lko.and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the termination of the petitioner's contractual services as Anganwadi Karyakatri based on an ex-parte inquiry report, in which she was neither issued notice nor associated, violates natural justice and merits quashing. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

The inquiry report dated 26.10.2013 was ex-parte: no notice was issued to the petitioner calling for her version or reply, nor was she ever associated in the inquiry.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

There was no requirement for the competent authority to have called for an inquiry into the complaint, since the petitioner's contractual services could always have been dispensed with.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

Once an inquiry was required to be conducted against the petitioner, it was in the fitness of things that her version should have been called for; this not having been done, the impugned termination order passed on the ex-parte inquiry report cannot stand.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Abdul Moin, J.) allowed Writ-A No. 1912 of 2015 filed by Smt. Susheela Devi, an Anganwadi Karyakatri appointed in April 2003, whose contractual services were terminated by order dated 11.02.2014 on a complaint of non-residence and non-attendance, acting on an ex-parte inquiry report dated 26.10.2013 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Utraula. Held: although the contractual services could have been dispensed with without any inquiry, once the competent authority chose to hold an inquiry, natural justice required that the petitioner be issued notice and her version called; the ex-parte report vitiated the termination. The impugned order was quashed; consequences to follow except payment of honorarium for the out-of-employment period, with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29722

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1912 of 2015

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Susheela Devi

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru It Director Bal Vikas Sewa Awam Lko.And Ors.

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Girdhari Lal Shukla,Amit Kumar Dubey,Tripti Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

Under challenge is the order dated 11.02.2014, copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, wherein the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakatri have been terminated.

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been appointed as Anganwadi Karyakatri in Village- Barhrakot, Vikaskhand- Balrampur in April, 2003. She got married in the year 2004, but she continued to reside in the same village even after her marriage. In the year 2014, a complaint was made against the petitioner contending that she does not reside in the village in question and only comes for the purpose of receiving Pushtahar and on account of she not coming to the center, the working is being affected.

¶11

The competent authority directed for holding an inquiry into the said complaint by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, who submitted an inquiry report dated 26.10.2013, a copy of which is Annexure No.CA-1 per which allegations levelled in the complaint were found true. After considering the said report, the contractual services of the petitioner were dispensed with by means of the order dated 11.02.2014, copy of which is Annexure No.1 to writ petition on the ground that she does not reside in the village in question.

¶12

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the services of the petitioner are contractual and could be dispensed with at any time as a contractual employee does not have any right to the post, yet considering that the complaint was inquired into by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who submitted his inquiry report dated 26.10.2013, which has been considered while dispensing with the services of the petitioner yet at no such time petitioner was ever associated with the inquiry. Consequently, the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with in a gross violation of natural justice and as such on this ground alone the impugned termination order merits to be set aside.

¶13

In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Saroj Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. passed in Writ Petition No.3334 of (S/S) of 2014 decided on 13.02.2015.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit, argues that after the marriage of the petitioner in the year 2014, she was not attending the Anganwadi Center, which was affecting the working of the said center and on a receipt of the complaint, an inquiry was required to be made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who submitted a report dated 26.10.2013, per which it was categorically found that the petitioner is not residing in the village in question and considering the said inquiry report, the competent authority vide impugned order dated 11.02.2014 has terminated the contractual services of the petitioner. The petitioner being a contractual employee, does not have any right to the post and as such no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the competent authority while terminating the contractual services of the petitioner.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it emerges that admittedly the petitioner was working on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri in Village- Barhrakot, Vikaskhand- Balrampur after appointment in April, 2003. She got married in the year 2004. A complaint was made against the petitioner that she was not attending the duty at the center in Village- Barhrakot. Once the services of the petitioner were contractual as such it was always open for the competent authority to have terminated the services of the petitioner but in his wisdom, he found it expedient to hold an inquiry into the complaint and required an inquiry to be conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The SubDivisional Magistrate submitted the inquiry report dated 26.10.2013 per which the allegations against the petitioner were found true. Incidentally, a perusal of the inquiry report dated 26.10.2013 would indicate that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner calling for her version or reply nor was she ever associated in the inquiry rather the officer has submitted the inquiry report ex-parte. Based on the said inquiry report, the competent authority has passed the order impugned dated 11.02.2014 per which the the contractual services of the petitioner have been terminated.

¶16

As already indicated above, there was no requirement for the competent authority to have called for an inquiry on the basis of the complaint which was submitted against the petitioner inasmuch as the contractual services of the petitioner could always have been dispensed with. However, the said procedure has not been adopted by the competent authority rather he called for an inquiry to be conducted on the basis of the allegations levelled in the complaint, which has resulted in an inquiry report dated 26.10.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner was never called to participate in the inquiry and inasmuch as the

¶17

inquiry report is an ex-parte inquiry report without calling for a version of the petitioner. Once an inquiry was required to be conducted against the petitioner by the competent authority, consequently, it was in the fitness of things that the version of the petitioner should have also been called for but the same was not done and based on the ex-parte inquiry report, the order impugned has been passed.

¶18

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed .

¶19

The order impugned dated 11.02.2014, a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, is quashed.

¶20

Consequences to follow except payment of honorarium for the period the petitioner remained out of employment. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Ashutosh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Susheela Devi v. State of U.P.Thru It Director Bal Vikas Sewa Awam Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Susheela Devi v. State of U.P.Thru It Director Bal Vikas Sewa Awam Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Ram Avtar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Pno NO.050500026 Netrapal Teotia and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Smt. Lakshmi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sukh Nand Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Forest Deptt.) Lko. and 3 Others

Pawananjai Pati Triptahi Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu., Govt. of U.P., Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others