Smt. Madhu Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order 07.06.2017 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Anganbadi Worker, in accordance with law.

¶20

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition

¶21

2

¶22

may be given.”

¶23

Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganbadi Worker on a fixed honorarium pursuant to order passed by the Project Officer/respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22.02.2017 at Anganbadi Center, Kharhari, Block Nawagarh, District Bemetara. The petitioner depicted herself as deserted lady, but subsequently an enquiry was conducted, wherein, it was found that the petitioner has submitted forged document, and therefore, vide order dated 07.06.2017 her services were terminated and against said order this petition has been preferred.

¶24

Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal, Advocate would submit that the petitioner was appointed in accordance with the guidelines framed by the department for appointment and removal of Anganbadi Workers and Assistant Anganbadi Workers. She would contend that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, therefore, order Annexure P/1 is bad in law. It is also contended that the petitioner possesses requisite qualification and she was a deserted lady, therefore, she submitted certificate in this regard. She would pray to quash the order dated 07.06.2017. It is also contended that the petitioner is still working on the said post pursuant to interim order dated 27.06.2017.

¶25

On the other hand, Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer would submit that a complaint was made against the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted wherein it was found that the desertion certificate submitted by the petitioner herein is forged one, and therefore, order Annexure P/1 was passed by respondent No. 3. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were terminated strictly in accordance with the condition No. 4 of order of appointment, which clearly states that i f, during the course of scrutiny, any of

¶26

3

¶27

the information or document is found to be forged , the services would be treated as terminated. He would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

It appears that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganbadi Worker pursuant to order dated 22.02.2017 passed by respondent No. 3. The appointment of the petitioner was on a fixed honorarium, but she was appointed in accordance with the prevalent guidelines. A complaint was made with regard to validity of desertion certificate and it was enquired into by the respondent authorities, but no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before taking a penal decision of termination of services; therefore, the order Annexure P/1 dated 07.06.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is hereby quashed .

¶30

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the respondent authorities are directed to conduct an enquiry strictly in accordance with the law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 120 days from today and shall be at liberty to take appropriate decision.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of .

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶34

$iddhant

Smt. Madhu Satnami v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhu Satnami v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Vs Ramdas Baghel

Shyam Ispat (India) Pvt. Ltd.Ltd. Vs Commissioner S G S T

Snehlata Gupta @ Babli Vs Hitesh Gupta @ Lucky Gupta

K. Sarika Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitya Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Basant Kumar Ghritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh