Banalata Behera Vs State of Odisha

“The petitioner therefore prays that, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit this application and after hearing the petitioner’s advocate issue a writ in nature of citiorri or any other suitable writ to quashing the order passed vide Annexure-7 & 9 and service of the petitioner be restored:

¶17

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶18

Page 1 of 7

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker under Mansinghpur Badasahi Anganwadi Centre under CDPO, Chilika as per order dated 19.03.2013. While working as such, she was served with a notice dated 05.07.2017 by the CDPO, Chilika alleging that she had falsely reflected the names of ten child beneficiaries in the pre-school attendance register and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,673/towards food for the said children. The petitioner was asked to deposit the amount under threat of legal action. As such, she deposited the amount on 14.07.2017. Again on 08.08.2017, the CDPO asked her to appear before the Sub-Collector on 11.08.2017. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Collector and was allegedly forced to furnish an undertaking that she would not repeat the mistake in future. Thereafter, by order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Sub-Collector, Khurda, the CDPO was directed to take necessary action as per Government guidelines as decision had been taken to disengage the petitioner. Accordingly, the CDPO by order dated

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

12.09.2017 disengaged the petitioner from the duties of Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner approached this Court challenging such order in W.P.(c). No. 17795 of 2018, which was disposed of by order dated 10.11.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal against the order of disengagement before the Collector. Pursuant to such order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, Khurda which was disposed of by the impugned order confirming the order of disengagement passed by the Sub-Collector and implemented by the CDPO.

¶22

Mr. S.K.Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the drastic step of disengaging the petitioner from service was taken without cogent proof of the allegations levelled against her. The authorities being in a dominant position forced her to deposit the amount in question and also to submit the undertaking. Mr. Nayak draws attention of this Court to the undertaking, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure 5, wherein she has categorically stated that the allegations were entirely motivated and false.

¶23

Page 3 of 7

¶24

Mr. A.R.Dash, learned AGA submits that by depositing the amount in question the petitioner has in a way admitted the allegations and therefore nothing further remained to be inquired into.

¶25

This Court finds that though certain allegations of misappropriation were levelled against the petitioner yet no fact-finding inquiry was ever conducted. Simply on an allegation the petitioner was called upon to deposit the allegedly misappropriated amount. The order asking her to deposit the misappropriated amount was passed on the threat of legal action. Therefore, this Court would not read much into the act of the petitioner depositing the amount in question. Be that as it may, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Sub-Collector. There also, no inquiry appears have been conducted and straightaway the order of disengagement was passed. Reading of the impugned order shows that the deposit made by the petitioner has been treated as confession of charges by her and as proof of the allegations. Further, the Collector appears to have proceeded more on

¶26

Page 4 of 7

¶27

presumption than on facts as would be evident from the following observation:

¶28

“ Further it is difficult to believe that the petitioner was not aware of 11 numbers of fake pre-school children during her tenure in the AWC and hence funds spent towards provision of ICDS services to these beneficiaries can be considered to have been misappropriated.”

¶29

With an order intends to deprive a person of his livelihood, the same cannot be passed or issued on mere presumption as it would amount to violation of the principles enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As has already been stated hereinbefore, there is no cogent and clear-cut evidence to show that the petitioner was responsible for mentioning the names of 11 fake pre-school children in the register. The entire matter appears to have proceeded on the basis of presumption. It is possible that the petitioner’s complicity may be eventually proved but the same has to be on the basis of an inquiry worth the name. From what has been narrated before, this Court is left with no doubt that the action of the Opposite Party authorities in disengaging

¶30

the petitioner from service on the basis of mere allegations without the same being duly proved in

¶31

Page 5 of 7

¶32

accordance with law, cannot be sustained. Moreover, the authorities being in a dominant position, the so-called undertaking submitted by the petitioner would carry no sanctity in view of the fact that the same was obtained by the employer on the threat of legal action. It is well settled when the matter pertains to persons placed unequally, with one party being a dominant position, the undertaking submitted by the weaker party against his own interest cannot carry any legal sanctity. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd & Etc v Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr .¹

¶33

For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is convinced that the impugned order, not having passed after considering the above vital aspects, warrants interference. Resultantly, the writ application is allowed.

¶34

The impugned order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Collector, Khurda, the order of disengagement passed by the CDPO, on 12.09.2017 and the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Sub-Collector regarding

¶35

1 1986 AIR 1571

¶36

Page 6 of 7

¶37

disengagement of the petitioner are hereby set aside. The Sub-Collector, Khurda is directed to conduct an inquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner after granting proper opportunity of hearing to her and to proceed thereafter in accordance with law. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from today. Till such time, the advertisement dated 12.03.2024 for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker of Mansinghpur Bada Sahi shall be kept in abeyance.

¶38

……..…………………..

¶39

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶40

Deepak

¶41

Signature Not Verified

¶42

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 30-Aug-2024 11:52:02

¶43

Page 7 of 7

Banalata Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banalata Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Gouri Hansda Vs Dulla Majhi

Md.Motiullah Vs State and Ors.

Sushanta Duan Vs State of Odisha

Gangadhar Behera Vs Sanali Nayak

Md. Muktar @ Mahammad Muktar Vs State of Odisha