Sumita Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

The petitioner was working as Anganwadi Worker in Chhatishsamil-Nandore Anganwadi Centre in the district of Bhadrak having been engaged as such in the year 2008. She claims to have discharged her duties to the satisfaction of authorities till November, 2018 when she suffered from jaundice and other ailments. As such, she underwent treatment at Bhubaneswar till 30^th December,

¶15

Page 1 of 10

¶16

She further claims to have submitted leave application to the CDPO. When the matter stood thus on 03.01.2019 after close of the office hours, she received communication dated 02.01.2019 from the office of the Sub-Collector asking her to submit explanation for alleged dereliction of duty since November 2018. She was granted three days’ time to submit her reply. She submitted her explanation on 05.01.2019 in the afternoon furnishing the details of her illness and treatment undergone by her. However, on the same day, the CDPO, Dhamnagar communicated the decision of the authorities to disengage her.

¶17

Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, Bhadrak being Misc. AWW No. 01 of 2019. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted her written note of submissions before the Appellate Authority at the time of hearing. The CDPO was directed to submit her report but copy of said report was never served upon the petitioner. Ultimately, by order dated 14.07.2021, the Collector held that the petitioner was remaining absent from the Centre and though she

¶18

Page 2 of 10

¶19

submitted the leave applications, yet the same were not accompanied by any medical papers nor any discharge or fitness certificate. As such, the Collector held that she had failed to render her services for implementation of the various Government schemes. It was further held that her performance was not satisfactory. On such findings, the appeal was rejected and the order of disengagement was upheld. Said order is impugned in the present writ application filed with the following

¶20

prayer:

¶21

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit the wit petition, call for the relevant records, issue Rule NISI, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayer of the petitioner be not allowed and she be not allowed to render her services as the Anganwadi Worker, in Chhatish-Nandore Anganwadi Centre under Dhamnagar Block of Bhadrak District, and if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or who insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute;

¶22

And may further be pleased to quash the order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Opp. Party No.3 abd dt. 07.01.2019 passed by Opp. Party No.5 as well as the order dated 14.07.2021 passed in A.W. Appeal No. 1 of 2019 by the Appellate Authority, more specifically the Opp. Party No.2 impugned herewith vide Annexure-3, 4 and 9 respectively, by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari;

¶23

And may also be pleased to command the Opp. Party Authorities, to allow the petitioner to continue with her services by restoring her to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Chhatish-Nandore Anganwadi Centre under Dhamnagar Block of Bhadrak District and also grant her the consequential benefits as admissible under Law, by issuing a Writ in the nature of Madamus; And further the Authorities be restrained from taking any steps pursuant to Notification dt. 07.01.2019 by issuing a writ in its appropriate nature;

¶24

And may issue any other writ other direction deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case;

¶25

Page 3 of 10

¶26

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

¶27

Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO, Dhamnagar, inter alia stating that the petitioner was disengaged due to her serious negligence in duty, inefficiency and lack of coordination with the villagers resulting in stagnation of routine works. As a result, the inhabitants of the service area of the Anganwadi Centre could not avail the minimum benefits under various Government schemes. Further, the petitioner deliberately used to leave headquarter without taking prior approval of the competent authority and was in the habit of sending photocopies of the leave applications through e- mail. She avoided to give the show cause notice dated 02.01.2019 sent through the concerned Lady Supervisor and that she was given three days’ time to submit her explanation but she did not do so. She submitted her explanation which was received by the CDPO on 07.01.2019. On such pleadings, the impugned order has been sought to be justified.

¶28

Heard Mr. S.S.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Behera learned AGA for the State.

¶29

Page 4 of 10

¶30

Mr. Das would argue that the principles of natural

¶31

justice were not followed at all in the case inasmuch as the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 3^rd of January, 2019 asking her to submit her explanation by 5^th of January. The petitioner submitted her explanation by e-mail and therefore, it cannot be said that the same was received on 07^th of January,2019. Further, certain documents like the CDPO’s report have been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority but copies thereof have not been served upon the petitioner. On merits, Mr. Das would contend that the undisputedly the petitioner rendered 18 years of unblemished service without any complaint whatsoever.

¶32

She was said to be absent for only 3 days, which is also not satisfactorily proved. It is also a matter of record that her leave applications were received by the CDPO. Therefore, the Appellate Authority could not have held it to be a case of unauthorized absence. Further, the Appellate Authority also could not have held that her performance was not satisfactory in view of the fact that

¶33

Page 5 of 10

¶34

there was no scar or blemish whatsoever in her service as Anganwadi Worker for 18 years.

¶35

Mr. Behera on the other hand, would submit that the show cause notice dated 02.01.2019 was served on the petitioner through the helper of the Anganwadi Centre as she repeatedly avoided to receiving the same. Nevertheless, having received the notice ultimately the petitioner chose not to submit any explanation before the stipulated date but did so after the order of disengagement was passed. Therefore, the same was not taken into consideration. It is further submitted by Mr. Behera, that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on three days and even though she submitted leave applications, she had been asked to furnish supporting medical documents, which she did not.

¶36

The fact that the petitioner was working as Anganwadi Worker since 2000 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that prior to November 2018 there was no complaint whatsoever with regard to the performance of the petitioner. The problem appears to have begun in November, 2018 when the petitioner took long leave till

¶37

Page 6 of 10

¶38

the end of December apparently for treatment of her ailment.

¶39

Be that as it may, coming to the show cause notice dated 02.01.2019, the same admittedly was served upon the petitioner on 03.01.2019. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 05.01.2019. She claims that she had submitted her explanation stating all relevant facts on 05.01.2019 by e-mail at 4.42 pm. Copy of the printout taken from the e-mail is enclosed as Anenxure-12 in the writ application. This document has not been specifically disputed or denied by the State in its counter. It would therefore, be incorrect to say that the CDPO received the mail containing the petitioner’s explanation on 07.01.2019. Therefore, it is evident that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not taken into consideration. That apart, perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Collector has noted the four dates on which the petitioner submitted applications for leave including the period of leave applied. It cannot therefore, under any stretch of imagination to be held that her absence was unauthorized. Even accepting for a moment

¶40

Page 7 of 10

¶41

that the petitioner had not submitted medical documents along with the application or fitness certificate after resuming duty, the same will not nullify the position that she had not remained unauthorizedly absent. That apart, it is stated that mass petitions were filed by the villagers on 27.10.2018, 29.11.2018 and 11.12.2018 about irregularties in providing services by the Anganwadi Worker. Said allegations were purportedly enquired into by the concerned Lady Supervisor on three dates i.e. on 08.11.2018, 12.12.2018 and 20.09.2018. The Collector has not mentioned in the order the particulars of the so called irregularties said to have been committed by the petitioner. It has been somewhat vaguely stated that the petitioner failed to render her services for implementation of Government schemes such as, Mamata, SNP, Immunization, VHSND, Pre-School-Education etc. But what exactly was her inaction in implementing these services has not been highlighted. The report of the Supervisor, enclosed as Annexure-G/4 to the counter, does not spell out the details of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Reading of the impugned order reveals

¶42

Page 8 of 10

¶43

that the Collector has not taken into consideration these vital aspects while deciding the appeal. On the contrary, he has referred to the roles and responsibilities of the Anganwadi Worker, which in the context of the case, was not at all relevant.

¶44

From what has been narrated hereinbefore, this Court is left with no doubt that the impugned action of disengaging the petitioner from service as well as the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority in upholding the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶45

For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-9 is hereby set aside. Consequently, order dated 05.01.2019 (Annexure-3) disengaging the petitioner from the post of AWW of Chhatishsamil-Nandore Anganwadi Centre is also set aside. The Opposite Party authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in her former post without any further delay and in any case, not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

¶46

Page 9 of 10

¶47

Consequently, the notification dated 07.01.2019 inviting applications for filling up the post of the Anganwadi Worker of the centre in question is quashed.

¶48

……..…………………..

¶49

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

¶50

Deepak

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 18-Feb-2025 12:18:34

¶53

Page 10 of 10

Sumita Mahapatra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumita Mahapatra 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswanath Karna Vs State of Odisha

Labanyabati Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Seikh Tajuddin Vs Govt. of India

Sabitri Ahir Vs State of Odisha

Purnima Naik Vs State of Odisha

Sharukh Khan Vs State of Odisha