Termination Of Services Of Anganwadi Supervisor Without Following Procedure, Patna HC Revokes.

A single judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri held that termination of Anganwadi Supervisor from the service without following the termination procedure under Clause XIV of the Pervekshika Niyojan Margdarshika is invalid. Background Facts The State Government created the Anganwadi Center No. 206 in Ward No. 8, Pilapur, Bhojpur District. Therefore the positions of Anganwadi Sevika/ Sahayika were advertised in 2016. Fourteen applications were received for the advertised post. There petitioner got the highest merit score and was selected during a public meeting (Aam Sabha) on November 12, 2016, in the presence of officials. No objections were raised during the provided time. However, after the selection process, some villagers raised allegations claiming that petitioner's academic documents were forged. Despite these objections, the C.D.P.O., Jagdishpur decided to proceed with her appointment. Later, another candidate in the selection process lodged a complaint with the Bihar Public Grievance Redressal Officer without including petitioner as a party. That candidate alleged that the petitioner submitted a forged mark sheet. The grievance officer prepared a report. The District Programme Officer directed petitioner to submit a reply based on the grievance officer's report. The petitioner replied but no departmental inquiry was initiated against her. Later the District Magistrate approved the termination order without hearing or following the proper proceedings, which resulted in removal of the petitioner. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner but he upheld the termination order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition. It was argued by the petitioner that as per the recruitment rules, a complaint should be filed against the selection of Anganwadi Sevika/ Sahayika with the District Programme Officer, who must decide after hearing the parties. But no such complaint was filed against the petitioner under the 2010 rules. It was further contended that the Public Grievance Officer lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Further that petitioner was not involved as a party in the complaint to the Public Grievance Officer. On the other hand it was contended by the State respondents that Sub-Clause (Kha) Rule XIV of the Pervekshika Niyojan Margdarshika provides for termination procedure, an Anganwadi Supervisor may be terminated if they fail to perform their duties satisfactorily. Then concerned authority can issue a show-cause notice, and based on the response, the District Magistrate can terminate the contract. It was argued that complete departmental inquiry was not required for such termination as petitioner was not a member of the State service due to the contractual nature of the employment. Findings of the Court It was observed by the court that the petitioner was terminated based on a complaint filed by another candidate in the selection process for Anganwadi Sahayika. The selection was made during an Aam Sabha meeting, where the petitioner, as an Anganwadi Supervisor had no role in the selection process. It was further observed that the petitioner did not have the authority to participate in deliberations, vote, or represent her views. The selection process was entirely handled by the Aam Sabha. Also there was no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner had failed in her role as Anganwadi Supervisor. It was held by the court that proceedings against an Anganwadi Supervisor cannot be initiated based solely on a complaint from the District Public Grievance Officer, as the procedure had been improperly initiated. Therefore, the termination orders issued by the District Magistrate and upheld by the Divisional Commissioner were quashed by the court. Further it was directed by the court that petitioner should be reinstated with all benefits. However, it was observed by the court that the competent authority is allowed for the initiation of new proceedings against the petitioner if any legitimate grievance arises, following the procedure under Clause XIV of the Pervekshika Niyojan Margdarshika. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of. Case No. : 9007 of 2018 Counsel for the Petitioner : Rabindra Kumar Choubey, Minu Kumari, Advs. Counsel for the Respondents : Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3; Bipin Kumar, AC to SC-3; Ritwaj Raman, Shashi Priya, Pankhuri, Advs.Case Title: Kiran Devi vs The State of Bihar and OrsLL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 1Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Termination Of Services Of Anganwadi Supervisor Without Following Procedure, Patna HC Revokes.

Namdev Singh

Tags