1 1 wp8627.22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 8627 OF 2022 Smt. Kanta W/o Gangaram Hazare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Ms Ayushi Dangre, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2/State. Shri P.A. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE : 28.01.2026. 1. The termination the order dated 10.02.2022 was passed by respondent no.4 - the Child Development Project Officer, Washim whereby the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika has been terminated on account of committing default in performing the duty. 2. The petitioner has been appointed as Anganwadi Sevika under Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICD Scheme) vide order dated 24.11.1993. It appears that, respondent no.4 issued show-cause notices as mentioned in the termination order at reference nos.2 to 6 calling upon her to explain as to why action should not be taken against her for the misconduct as mentioned in the show-cause notices. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause, notices, however, respondent no.4 vide the termination order terminated the services of the petitioner. The appeal filed before respondent no.3 – the Chief Executive Officer, Washim came to be dismissed on 28.03.2022. Further, 2026:BHC-NAG:1954 2 1 wp8627.22.odt respondent no.2 – the Divisional Commissioner also did not interfere with the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 19.12.2022. Hence, this petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the termination of the petitioner which is amounting to stigmatic termination without departmental enquiry is not permissible. To buttress her submission, she seeks to rely upon the decision of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No.408 of 2014 (Mangalbai Jaspalsinh Bayas Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 25.06.2015, wherein in para 16 it has been held as under: “16. A stigmatic termination from service, without following the due procedure is an anathema. The Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Sham Gupta Vs. U.P.State [(1992) 2 SCC 21, Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satvendra Nath Bose National [AIR 1999 SC 983] and Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. [(2000) 5 SCC 152], have concluded that an employer may opt for a golden handshake by issuing an innocuous order of termination to a probationer. However, if the termination is founded on charges of misconduct and if the order of termination without departmental enquiry indicates the charges and reasons for termination, it shall amount to a stigmatic termination which is impermissible.” 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 submitted the petitioner is appointed on 3 1 wp8627.22.odt honorarium basis therefore, there is no need to hold departmental enquiry and she can be terminated without holding departmental enquiry and issuance of show-cause notice suffice the purpose. According to him, the procedure for terminating the services of Anganwadi Sevika has been laid down in Government Resolution dated 12.04.2007. According to him, she is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore she can approach to the Industrial Court/Labour Court. Hence, he sought rejection of the petition. 5. No doubt the appointment of the petitioner under ICD Scheme is on honorarium basis but, here the case is of termination which is amounting to stigmatic termination because the misconduct is alleged against the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that stigmatic termination from services without following due procedure is not permissible even cases the person is appointed on probation or is appointed on honorarium basis. If the termination is on the account of misconduct then the full-fledged departmental enquiry is required to be conducted by the employer. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of Mangalbai (supra). So far as alternate remedy is concerned, since principles of natural justice by holding departmental enquiry has not been followed, the objection in this regard does not stand. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 4 1 wp8627.22.odt 6. The order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in Case No.06/2022 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order dated 28.03.2022 and the termination order dated 10.02.2022 does not survive. 7. The respondent no.4 is at liberty to frame the charge against the petitioner, if so desirous but by following due procedure of law. 8. With above directions, the petition stands disposed of. (M.W. Chandwani, J.) Wagh