Smt. Khiralata Mohanta Vs. Collector and Three ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........of an appointment letter dated 19.4.88 in karadapala anganwadi centre and while continuing as such, and discharging her lawful duty to the satisfaction of the authority, the cd.p.o. i.e. opp.party no.3 by order dated 24.6.98. (annexure-1) terminated her services. it is alleged that the aforesaid order of termination (annexure-1) is in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner even though the order of termination was passed on allegation of misappropriation. according to the petitioner, it is the president and secretary of the mahila mandal of the village, who were involved in misappropriation and mismanagement of different grants made available to the mahila mandal and as she had brought the said illegal activities of the mahila mandal to the notice of the higher authorities, she has been victimized.3. on behalf of the opp.parties a counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that there was allegation of misappropriation of funds as well as mismanagement of the anganwadi centre for which the mahila mandal called a meeting on 23.12.97 of its members and the villagers and anganwadi worker and on that date no.....

Judgment:

ORDER

B.P. Das, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. R. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Das, learned Addl.Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. The case of the petitioner in this writ application is that she was appointed as an Anganwadi worker by virtue of an appointment letter dated 19.4.88 in Karadapala Anganwadi Centre and while continuing as such, and discharging her lawful duty to the satisfaction of the authority, the CD.P.O. i.e. opp.party No.3 by order dated 24.6.98. (Annexure-1) terminated her services. It is alleged that the aforesaid order of termination (Annexure-1) is in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner even though the order of termination was passed on allegation of misappropriation. According to the petitioner, it is the President and Secretary of the Mahila Mandal of the Village, who were involved in misappropriation and mismanagement of different grants made available to the Mahila Mandal and as she had brought the said illegal activities of the Mahila Mandal to the notice of the higher authorities, she has been victimized.

3. On behalf of the opp.parties a counter affidavit has been filed stating therein that there was allegation of misappropriation of funds as well as mismanagement of the Anganwadi Centre for which the Mahila Mandal called a meeting on 23.12.97 of its members and the villagers and Anganwadi worker and on that date no resolution was passed. As it appears, on 25.12.97 again a meeting was held wherein the villagers expressed their dissatisfaction over the work of the petitioner and certain resolutions were passed. One of such resolutions is that the petitioner should pay back the amount, which she had taken from the account of the Mahila Mandal and that she shall be disengaged from her service as Anganwadi worker.

4. According to the learned counsel for the State since the petitioner Smt. Khiralata Mahanta was, present in the meeting where decision for her disengagement was taken, no further notice was required to be issued to her. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, she had put her signature on the said resolution as she was present in the said meeting, but fact remains that no notice was issued to her to explain the allegations made against her. From Annexure-D/3 it appears that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs. 16,000/- from the Pass Book of the Mahila Mandal and utilized the same as loan to certain persons without the knowledge of the Members of the Mahila Mandal and out of the said amount, she had repaid Rs. 12,000/- and has undertaken to repay the balance Rs. 4,000/- It is true that the allegations made against the petitioner are very serious in nature, but for the reason of seriousness in allegation, the principle of natural justice cannot be over-looked.

5. The principle of natural justice demands that the authority should have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking action which would ultimately involve civil consequence and prejudicially affect the petitioner. Law is well settled in this regard in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr., reported in AIR 1976 SC 597 wherein it is held that the rule of natural justice is embodied in every statute and even where there is no specific provision for the same and when an administrative action involves civil consequence, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable. Even though the guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers issued in 1992 did not contain any specific provision for giving an opportunity of hearing while disengaging an Anganwadi Worker. Clause 15 of the subsequent guidelines of 1998, which is now governing the field for selection of Anganwadi worker provides for disengagement of Anganwadi worker only after giving her a notice and affording an opportunity of hearing against the action proposed to be taken against her. Admittedly this has not been done in the present case for which the impugned order passed in Annexure-1 dated 24.6.1998 is set aside. It is open to the authorities to issue a show-cause to the petitioner stating the charges levelled against her and taken appropriate decision on the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The writ Detition is accordingly allowed.