The High Court dismissed the second appeal of an Anganwari worker challenging her termination. The court held that statutory service rules did not apply to her contingent post, but found natural justice was met via notice and hearing. Termination was upheld due to willful absence from duty, not pending proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
RSA No.2089 of 2011 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2089 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.02.2012
Bimla Devi alias Menakshi
......Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the appellant.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
The plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the order dated 13.08.2004 passed by the defendants whereby, her services had been terminated is illegal, null and void and had been passed against the principles of natural justice. Plaintiff also prayed for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction, in terms of directing the defendants to reinstate her with full back wages and all other consequential benefits. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had served as an Anganwari worker under defendant No.3 for a period of almost 20 years. Her service record has been without blemish and her service have been terminated without affording an opportunity of being heard and against the principles of natural justice. It was pleaded that
-2-
RSA No.2089 of 2011 (O&M)
the plaintiff had been arrested in pursuance to a false prosecution having been lodged against her under the provisions of Immoral Traffic Act. However, the plaintiff set up a case that the termination order had been passed by defendant No.3 with malafide intention. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was pregnant and was admitted in a nursing home in Ambala City from 16.07.2003 to 25.07.2003 and on account of certain medical complications, she had been referred to PGI, Chandigarh. It was pleaded that there was no ground for the defendants to have passed an order of termination.
The defendants filed a written statement by stating that the plaintiff had been employed as an Anganwari worker and had served in the capacity of a contingent paid honorarium worker. There was a specific stipulation in the appointment letter that her services were liable to be terminated without giving notice, if her work and conduct were found to be unsatisfactory. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had remained behind the bars from 20.06.2003 to 11.07.2003 upon registration of FIR No.188 dated 20.06.2003 under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Immoral Traffic Act. Defendants, however, took a stand that the impugned order of termination had been passed after following the due procedure and having followed the principles of natural justice.
Upon the pleadings of the parties, following two crucial issues apart from others have been framed by the trial Court:
RSA No.2089 of 2011 (O&M)
-3-
reinstatement with full back wages, seniority and all service benefits from the date of termination till payment? OPP
The trial Court dismissed the suit and even the civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant has met the same fate in terms of passing of the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2010 by Additional District Judge, Ambala.
I have heard Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Sullar, Advocate for the appellant.
The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that a comprehensive enquiry had not been initiated and carried out prior to the passing of impugned order. Learned counsel would further contend that vide order/judgment dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala in FIR No.188 dated 20.06.2003, the plaintiff stands acquitted and such fact had not been taken into account by the lower appellate Court.
The employment of the plaintiff/appellant was admittedly in the capacity of a contingent paid honorarium worker. She was not holding any cadre post. Service of the plaintiff/appellant were not goverened by any statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Even as regards imposition of any penalty and that too a major penalty, the Punishment and Appeal Rules and the procedure laid down therein, would not be applicable to an employee working as an Anganwari worker on a contingent paid honorarium post. Inspite of such position, I find that due opportunity had been granted to the plaintiff/appellant by the employer regarding absence from duty and notices in this regard dated 02.07.2003 Ex.D-2, 10.07.2003 Ex.D-3 and 14.07.2003 Ex.D-4 had been issued.
RSA No.2089 of 2011 (O&M)
-4-
Apparently, the plaintiff/appellant did not respond to the aforementioned notices. Thereafter, a show cause notice as regards the imposition of major penalty of termination of service was issued to her vide Ex.D-5 and the same was duly replied to by the plaintiff/appellant vide Ex.D-6. Even an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to her and it is only thereafter that the impugned order of termination dated 13.08.2004 was served. The assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the rules of natural justice and due opportunity having not been afforded to the plaintiff/appellant, is thus wholly misconceived.
Equally misplaced is the argument with respect to the plaintiff/appellant having been acquitted in relation to FIR lodged against her under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Immoral Traffic Act. The impugned order of termination dated 13.08.2004 has not been passed on account of such prosecution having been initiated against her under the provisions of Immoral Traffic Act. The basis of the termination order is willful absence from duty without there being any justification for the same. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below do not warrant any interference.
For the reasons recorded above, the present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.
Appeal dismissed .
February 23, 2012 harjeet
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
Note: Whether to be reported?
No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement with back wages after being terminated from a contingent paid honorarium post?
Whether the appellant's acquittal in an Immoral Traffic Act case affected the validity of her termination?
Bimla Devi alias Menakshi
State of Haryana
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
