Allowed¶45

Anita Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC13 Mar 2026WP(C)/33825/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Natural justice violation; quashing of administrative order; Anganwadi worker disengagement; allegation of forged certificates at selection; no notice and no opportunity of hearing; Sub-Collector Gunpur/Gunupur; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; remand for fresh decision after hearing; three-month timeline; Orissa High Court Cuttack; WP(C) No.33825 of 2023; Anita Behera v. State of Odisha; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak; Dattu Namdev Thakur; Asit Kumar Kar; Durgawati Singh.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order (Annexure-5) quashed; disengagement matter remitted to the Sub-Collector, Gunpur for fresh decision after hearing all parties in compliance with natural justice within three months; petition disposed of finally. ¶45

Anita Behera Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order (Annexure-5) disengaging the petitioner as Anganwadi worker was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The impugned disengagement order was passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunpur without issuing any notice to the petitioner or affording her an opportunity of hearing, and therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

As settled law endorsed by the court, an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed; violation of natural justice renders the order a nullity, and striking down such an order leaves fresh proceedings open.

¶31

Key takeaways

Applying the ratio of the cited decisions (A.R. Antulay; Dattu Namdev Thakur; Asit Kumar Kar; Durgawati Singh) to the impugned order, the court found it proper to quash the impugned order vide Annexure-5 by interfering through the writ petition.ratio¶42
The matter of disengagement on the ground of submission of forgery certificate is remitted back to the Sub-Collector, Gunpur to decide afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties including the petitioner, in full compliance of the principles of natural justice, expeditiously within three months from filing of the certified copy of the judgment.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India — Petitioner disengaged as Anganwadi worker, Bhairabgada Anganwadi Centre, by Sub-Collector, Gunpur vide order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure-5) on villagers' allegation of submission of forged certificates at selection — No notice issued and no opportunity of hearing afforded before disengagement — Held: order passed in violation of principles of natural justice; settled law that such an order is a nullity, liable to be quashed, leaving fresh proceedings open (A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602; Dattu Namdev Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 2012 SCW 203; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 2 AWC 1628; Durgawati Singh v. Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits, Special Appeal No.497 of 2021 (Allahabad)) — Impugned order quashed — Matter remitted to Sub-Collector, Gunpur to decide afresh after hearing all parties including petitioner in full compliance of natural justice within three months of filing certified copy — Petition allowed and disposed of finally.

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.33825 of 2023

¶3

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

Anita Behera

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

¶9

… Opposite Parties .

¶10

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. B. Das, Advocate

¶12

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel. (For the State)

¶13

P R E S E N T:

¶14

HONOURABLE

¶15

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶16

Date of Hearing : 13.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 13.03.2026

¶17

WP(C) No.33825 of 2023

¶18

Page 1 of 6

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶21

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned Order dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunpur (Opp. Party No.2) disengaging the petitioner from Anganwadi worker of Bhairabgada Anganwadi Centre, as per the allegation of the villagers on the ground of submission of forgery certificates by her (petitioner) during her selection as Anganwadi worker of Bhairabgada Anganwadi Centre.

¶22

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶23

During hearing, the learned counsels of both the sides fairly submitted that, for passing the impugned order by the Sub-Collector, Gunpur (Opp. Party No.2) relating to the disengagement of the petitioner from Anganwadi worker of Bhairabgada Anganwadi Centre, no opportunity of hearing

¶24

was given to her (petitioner).

¶25

WP(C) No.33825 of 2023

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

3. It appears from the impugned order vide Annexure-5

¶28

that, in fact, no notice was issued to the petitioner as well as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to have her say before the Sub-Collector, Gunpur (Opp. Party No.2) relating to the allegations alleged by the villagers of Bhairabgada against her for her disengagement.

¶29

4. The aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides as well as the impugned order vide Annexure-5 are going to show that, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 has been passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunpur (Opp. Party No.2) for the disengagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of Bhiarabgada centre in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶30

5. It is the settled propositions of law that,

¶31

“if any order or judgment is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed. Because, violation of principles of natural justice renders the impugned order as nullity. Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open.”

¶32

WP(C) No.33825 of 2023

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

6. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶35

(i) In a case between A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr. reported in 1988 (2) SCC 602 in Para No.55 (Seven Judges Bench) that, Violation of principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity.

¶36

(ii) In a case between Dattu Namdev Thakur Vs State Of Maharashtra and others reported in 2012 SCW 203 that, when, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶37

(iii) In a case between Asit Kumar Kar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors reported in (2009) 2 AWC 1628 that, an order having adverse consequences should not be passed without hearing the person affected thereby. (iv) In a case between Durgawati Singh And Ors. vs Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits Lucknow and others decided in Special Appeal No.497 of 2021 (Allahabad) that, whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left open.

¶38

7. As per the discussions and observations made

¶39

above, when, it is held that, the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure-5) has been passed by the SubCollector, Gunpur (O.P. No.2) in violation of the principles of natural justice, then at this juncture, by applying the

¶40

WP(C) No.33825 of 2023

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

ratio of the above decisions to the impugned order, it is felt proper to quash the said impugned order vide Annexure-5 by interfering with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶43

8. Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

¶44

9. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

¶45

10. The impugned order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Collector, Gunupur (O.P. No.2) is quashed.

¶46

The matter relating to the disengagement of the petitioner on the ground of submission of forgery certificate is remitted back to the Sub-Collector, Gunpur (O.P. No.2) to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties thereof including the Petitioner in this writ petition in full compliance of the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months

¶47

WP(C) No.33825 of 2023

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

from the date of filing of the certified copy of this

¶50

judgment by any of the Parties.

¶51

11 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is

¶52

disposed of finally.

¶53

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶54

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 13 .03. 2026// Sipra Muduli Sr. Stenographer

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPR A MUDULI Reason: Authen tication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Mar-2026 12:48:09 WP (C) No.33825 of 2023

¶57

Page 6 of 6

Anita Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita 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

M/S.Himmat Self Help Group, Bhadrak Vs State of Odisha

Dinabandhu Oram Vs Dukhi Oram

Rama Chandra Das Vs Satyabrata Sahu, Addl. Chief Secy., Dept. of Revenue and Disaster Management, Bbsr

Kalpana Kuanr Vs State of Odisha

Mangala Dhal Vs State of Odisha

Mansoor Ali Quadri Vs Union of India