Dismissed¶31

Saraswati Behera v. Govt of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Aug 2025WP(C)/37016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Worker disengagement; Khandadeula Anganwadi Centre, Mayurbhanj; Appeal Case No.01 of 2022; Collector, Mayurbhanj order dt. 17.11.2022; Sub-Collector, Baripada disengagement order dt. 27.07.2022; C.D.P.O., Betnoti and Lady Supervisor enquiry; non-distribution of SNP, THR, Chhatua during Covid-19; unauthorised absence 21.01.2022 to 11.02.2022; natural justice in departmental action; limited certiorari scope against quasi-judicial findings; perverse findings test; W.P.(C) No.37016 of 2022 dismissed by Sashikanta Mishra, J. on 12.08.2025; interim order vacated.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated. ¶31

Saraswati Behera Vs Govt of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and the interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in Appeal Case No.01 of 2022 upholding the petitioner's disengagement as Anganwadi Worker was liable to be quashed and the petitioner reinstated. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The scope of interference by the High Court with an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority in a certiorari proceeding is very limited; unless the findings are perverse, against the weight of evidence on record, or such as no prudent person would arrive at, the Writ Court would be slow to interfere.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

There is no infirmity in the impugned order of the Collector, Mayurbhanj: the Collector exhaustively considered the contentions of both sides, arrived at specific findings of fact enumerated under specific paragraphs, and nothing persuaded this Court to take a different view on the materials placed before the Collector; accordingly no reason to interfere with the findings of fact rendered by the Collector as Appellate Authority.

¶29

Key takeaways

The principles of natural justice were followed while passing the order of disengagement; nothing showed otherwise, and there were materials indicating that the petitioner was present during the enquiry.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Certiorari review of quasi-judicial order - Anganwadi Worker engaged in 1992 at Khandadeula Anganwadi Centre, Mayurbhanj, disengaged by Sub-Collector, Baripada (order dt. 27.07.2022) following enquiry by C.D.P.O., Betnoti and Lady Supervisor into allegations of non-distribution of SNP, THR, Chhatua etc. during Covid-19 Pandemic and unauthorised absence from 21.01.2022 to 11.02.2022 - Appeal dismissed by Collector, Mayurbhanj vide order dt. 17.11.2022 in Appeal Case No.01 of 2022 - Held, scope of High Court interference with a quasi-judicial order in a certiorari proceeding is very limited; absent perverse findings, findings against weight of evidence, or conclusions no prudent person would reach, the Writ Court is slow to interfere; Collector's exhaustive findings of fact disclosed no infirmity and natural justice stood followed, materials showing the petitioner's presence during enquiry - Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.37016 of 2022

¶3

Saraswati Behera

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others

¶8

Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. S.N. Patnaik, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

12.08.2025

03. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in Appeal Case No.01 of 2022 whereby the order of disengagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker passed by the Sub-Collector, Baripada was upheld.

¶16

3. The facts of the case, briefly state, are that the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker of Khandadeula Anganwadi Centre in the district of Mayurbhanj in the year 1992. While working as such, some allegations were levelled against her, particularly, during the time of Covid-19 Pandemic relating to non-distribution of SNP, THR, Chhatua etc. to the beneficiaries. Further, it was alleged that she remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 21.01.2022 to 11.02.2022 without informing her superior authorities. The SubCollector, Baripada, on the basis of factual enquiry conducted by the C.D.P.O., Betnoti and Lady Supervisor found the allegations to be correct and therefore by order dated 27.07.2022, directed disengagement of the petitioner from duty. The petitioner preferred

¶17

the abovementioned Appeal before the Collector, Mayurbhanj. The Collector, Mayurbhanj after considering the contentions raised and the findings of the inquiry conducted on the direction of the SubCollector, Baripada, found the allegations against the petitioner to be established. As such, the Collector found no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Sub-Collector so as to interfere. The appeal was thus dismissed.

¶18

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:

¶19

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be p leased t o admit the writ application, issue notice to the Opp. parties and the very order passed in the Appeal Case No- 01 of 2022 dtd. 17.11.2022 under Annexure-7 may kindly be quashed and in consequences thereof the petitioner may kindly be reinstated in service in the interest of justice.

¶20

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

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

¶22

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the C.D.P.O., Betnoti on behalf of the other opposite parties, inter alia , stating that the petitioner had failed to perform her duties properly for which she was disengaged. The petitioner was asked to prepare survey report and social map of village Khandadeula by the Sector Supervisor, but she deliberately submitted report and wrong social map including some S.T. families which she admitted of having done being forced by the villagers. Further, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent without informing the authority from 21.01.2022 to 11.02.2022. The petitioner claims to have joined by submitting a medical certificate, but the same was actually never received. In fact, she had applied for one day leave on 21.01.2022 for medical check up. Thereafter, she applied for leave from 22.01.2022 to 27.01.2022 and then again for 15

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

days from 28.01.2022 onwards for her treatment. The allegations that her leave applications were not accepted by the ICDS Supervisor is not correct. The petitioner never submitted her joining report in writing with medical fitness certificate though she was asked to do so. She never joined in the office of C.D.P.O., Betnoti nor produced her medical certificate. The leave applications were never sanctioned. The principles of natural justice were duly followed during the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. It was also found that during inquiry she admitted to not having distributed commodities like Chhatua, Eggs, Rice, etc. properly to the beneficiaries from April, 2020.

¶25

6. Heard Mr. A.K. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 7. Mr. Jena would submit that the petitioner fell ill for a long period and remained under treatment. She intimated such fact to the Lady Supervisor by submitting Whatsapp messages as she refused to receive the physical copies. The allegations of misconduct are entirely false and baseless The petitioner was never afforded opportunity of hearing and was rather asked to sign on a blank paper. The Collector has not considered these aspects in the proper perspective for which the impugned order is bad in law.

¶26

8. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the principles of natural justice were strictly adhered to inasmuch as the inquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner admitted to have not distributed the required commodities to the beneficiaries during the relevant period. That apart, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent as her leave applications were not sanctioned. She also never joined thereafter nor submitted the joining report before the CDPO, Betnoti. The allegation of taking her signature on a blank paper is baseless.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

9. Having considered the rival submissions and the materials on record, this Court would first like to keep in perspective the settled legal principle that the scope of interference by the High/Court with an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority in a certiorari proceeding is very limited. Unless it is demonstrated that the findings of the quasi-judicial authority are perverse, against the weight of evidence on record or such as no prudent person would arrive at, the Writ Court would be slow to interferer.

¶29

10. Examined on the anvil of the above principle, this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj. The impugned order clearly shows that the Collector has considered the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the CDPO, Betnoti exhaustively. After considering the same, the Collector has arrived at the specific findings of fact which have been enumerated under specific paragraphs. This Court has gone through those findings and found nothing to be persuaded to it to take a different view then what has been taken based on materials placed before the Collector. That apart, there is nothing to show that the principles of natural justice were not followed while passing the order of disengagement. In fact, as submitted by learned counsel for the State, there are materials to show that the petitioner was present during the enquiry. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the findings of fact rendered by the Collector as Appellate Authority.

¶30

11. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is therefore,

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

12. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶34