Full Judgment
In this writ application petitioners have challenged the orders of the District Program Officer dated 26.02.2010, 14.09.2009 and 29.09.2009, as contained in Annexure-3, 8 and 8/1 respectively; the order of the District Magistrate dated 18.01.2011 and the order of the Commissioner dated 27.07.2011, as contained in Annexure-7. By the impugned orders, petitioners have been removed from the post of Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika which orders have been confirmed by the higher authorities.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the orders were issued by the District Program Officer on the direction of the Director, contained in his letter no.2783 dated 16.10.2009, in which, on the basis of inspection reports, he had directed the District Program Officer to take action of disengagement of the petitioners and others and report compliance to the Directorate. He submits that firstly the inspection report was never served on the petitioner and secondly that the notice which was issued to the petitioner was empty formality as the Director had already issued directions to the District Program Officer to remove the petitioners and others. He further submits that, now from the inspection report, which has been brought on record as Annexure-A with the supplementary counter affidavit, it will be evident that the alleged reasons for terminating the services of the petitioners were non est.
As per the counter affidavit, the reasons assigned for cancellation of the engagement of the petitioners were that the inspection was held on Friday which was a day for distribution of take home ration and distribution had to be held between 9.00 am to 1.00 pm. However, during that period, the centre was found closed and the petitioners were found absent. This was considered as gross misconduct by the petitioners and, therefore, recommendations were made for cancellation of their engagements. However, the inspection report, which has now been brought on record as Annexure-A with the supplementary counter affidavit filed today, shows that the inspecting officer did not find the centre closed. From the report it is apparent that inspection was held at 11.30 am. The inspecting officer had found children on the centre, but when he checked the name of one child from the register he did not find his name. He was informed that at the time of inspection any child is brought to the centre for attendance. Except for this noting in the report no other irregularity, as enlisted in the proforma of inspection report, has been marked as found at the Centre at the time of inspection.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in fact, both the petitioners were at that point of time engaged in Pulse Polio Program and after the said program was over they came back to the centre and distributed the ration.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is admitted position that the take home ration was not distributed between the time it was scheduled to be distributed which was a misconduct on the part of the petitioners.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having considered the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that, in any case, the order of the disengagement of the petitioners cannot be sustained. It is not denied that with the notice issued by the District Program Officer the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. This is also apparent that the grounds for termination of the engagement of the petitioners were non est as they were not supported by the findings of the enquiry officer as recorded in the enquiry report. This is also apparent from the impugned orders that the defence of the petitioners that they were engaged in the Pulse Polio Program and after it was over the take home ration was distributed and that besides the registered children, some other children also come at the Centre, has not at all been considered by the respondents. Moreover this is also apparent that in the letter of the Director dated 16.08.2009 there was a clear direction to the District Program Officer to take steps for their disengagement in accordance with law and submit compliance report. This clearly amounts to a clear direction to the District Program Officer to terminate the concerned Sevika and Sahayika even before giving any opportunity of hearing to them. Hence, the notice issued to the petitioners by the District Welfare Officer, vide Annexure-1, was clearly an empty formality.
In the circumstances, the said orders of the District Program Officer, District Magistrate and the Commissioner are quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that now fresh engagements have been made of the Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika on the centre.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the advertisement itself it was mentioned that the same shall be subject to result of any case pending.
In the circumstances, the appointments made are subject to the result of this writ application. Therefore, the same shall abide by this order and consequential action shall be taken by the respondents positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
This writ application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.