1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8793 of 2023 1 - Smt. Subhadra Bhosle W/o Shri Shankar Rao Bhosle Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Pendarwa, Post Ranigaon, Police Station Ratanpur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Belha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For State :- Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. For Respondent No.4 :- Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the illegal oral termination from the post of Assistant, Anganbadi Kendra, Pendarawa, District Bilaspur, communicated by respondent No. 4 without issuance of any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner’s representation dated 27.06.2023 remains undecided. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “1.That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to decide the representation before respondent no. 2 dated 27-06-2023 and representation before respondent no. 3 dated 14-06-2023 submitted. application was submitted. 2.That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner. 3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant at Anganbadi Kendra under Janpad Panchayat Belha by appointment letter dated 22.12.1997 and was posted at Anganbadi Kendra, Pendarawa. The petitioner continuously discharged her duties; however, due to her daughter’s marriage on 18.02.2019, she orally informed the Anganbadi Worker and proceeded on leave, after which she was prevented from resuming duty by changing the lock of the centre and was forcibly turned away. During the COVID period, without any notice or order, another assistant was engaged in her place, her centre was shifted, and her services were effectively terminated by deceit. No notice or information regarding removal was ever served, and her salary was also not properly credited. The petitioner submitted representations dated 14.06.2023 and 27.06.2023 to respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, which remain undecided. Hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been terminated from service without issuance or service of any termination order and without serving any notice whatsoever. It is further submitted that no procedure as prescribed under the Rules of 1999 governing removal of Anganwadi Karyakarta has been followed. The petitioner has been arbitrarily removed from service without being supplied with any interim or final order and without being afforded any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the 4 petitioner had approached the concerned Collector, District Bilaspur, by filing an application on 27.05.2023 seeking appropriate orders for her reinstatement and for taking action against the erring officers. However, despite the lapse of a considerable period, no action has been taken on the said application till date, and the petitioner continues to suffer grave hardship. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the petition and issue appropriate directions to the respondent authorities for reinstatement of the petitioner in service along with all consequential service benefits. 5. Learned counsel submits that the contesting respondent is respondent No. 4, and as such, respondent No. 4 would be in a position to apprise this Hon’ble Court as to the reasons and circumstances under which the petitioner has been removed from service. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner was issued show-cause notices on 02.01.2019 and 12.07.2019, and that inspections were also conducted at the concerned Anganwadi Centre. It is submitted that the petitioner remained absent from duties at the said Anganwadi Centre, and accordingly, she was directed to submit her reply to the show-cause notices. However, despite due opportunity, the petitioner failed to submit any reply, and consequently, the order of removal came to be 5 passed. It is further submitted that all necessary procedural compliances were duly followed and that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner was never issued or served with any show-cause notice and had never received the same. It is contended that only after filing of the present petition, the respondents are placing reliance upon the alleged notices merely as an afterthought to justify the impugned action. The petitioner vehemently denies having received any such notice or having appended her signatures thereon. It is further submitted that the alleged signatures appearing on the said notices have been obtained fraudulently and do not belong to the petitioner. In support thereof, the petitioner has filed an affidavit categorically stating that the signatures shown on the notices are not her own. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a careful perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner has specifically disputed the authenticity of the signatures purportedly appearing on the alleged show-cause notices relied upon by the respondents. The petitioner has categorically denied having received any such notices and has further alleged that the 6 signatures appearing thereon are not her own and have been obtained fraudulently. In support of the said contention, the petitioner has placed reliance upon an affidavit on record disputing the said signatures. 10. In view of the aforesaid serious dispute with regard to service of notice and genuineness of signatures, which involves questions of fact requiring proper examination, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remitted to the competent authority, i.e., the concerned Collector, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The concerned Collector shall examine the issue relating to service of show-cause notices, the genuineness of the disputed signatures, and compliance of the procedure prescribed under the applicable Rules, after affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the concerned respondents. 11. It is also directed that while deciding the matter afresh, the concerned Collector shall take into consideration the petitioner’s earlier application filed before him on 27.06.2023, which is stated to be pending and undecided till date, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with all the contentions raised by the parties. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is clarified that if any objection with regard to limitation arises, the same shall be considered by the Collector by taking into account the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present 7 petition on 25.09.2023, and the period spent in prosecuting the present proceedings shall be duly considered in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the concerned Collector, who is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha