1 2025:CGHC:57186-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 824 of 2025 Basanti Kushwaha W/o Shri Mahesh Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 62 Years Working As Aanganbadi Worker And Posted At Aaganbadi Center Ghatai, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Women And Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate of Department of Women And Child Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector (Women And Child Development), Distt. M.C.B. Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Bharatpur, Distt. MCB, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Project Officer Integrated Child Development, Bharatpur, Distt. MCB, Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Distt. MCB, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.26 10:24:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.11. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for State/respondents. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and set-aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 10363/2025 and to allow the prayer clause sought by the appellant in the writ petition, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.10363 of 2025 (Basanti Kushwaha v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been disposed of. 4. Brief facts of the case, are that the appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed as an Aanganbadi Worker at Aanganbadi Centre, Ghatai, District Korea (C.G.) by order dated 14.08.1983 3 and has been discharging her duties sincerely and honestly for more than 42 years without any break or complaint. The original Aanganbadi Centre building had become abandoned, dilapidated and unsafe, and was consequently demolished by the Gram Panchayat in November 2024. Due to the non-availability of a suitable building, the appellant/writ petitioner was constrained to run the Centre from the house of one Maya Devi by paying a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- from her own resources. On 15.07.2025, at the request of the said Maya Devi, the appellant/writ petitioner vacated the room and temporarily carried out the activities of the Centre in the courtyard, during which local press reporters visited and, noticing the absence of a proper building, published a report along with the statement of the appellant/writ petitioner. 5. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that despite these circumstances being bona fide and beyond her control, respondent No.6 abruptly passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 without issuing any show-cause notice, without granting any opportunity of hearing, without conducting any enquiry or departmental proceedings, and without considering the material on record. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the allegations levelled against her are false, baseless and stigmatic, and had she been afforded an opportunity of hearing, she would have established the true facts. The appellant/writ petitioner also relies upon the applicable government circulars mandating that employees must first be given an opportunity to rectify 4 deficiencies, which, according to her, was not complied with. 6. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner submitted a representation seeking cancellation of the impugned order dated 22.07.2025, but no action was taken, causing mental harassment and adversely affecting her service. Subsequently, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 10363 of 2025; however, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 19.09.2025 without considering the relevant material placed on record. 7. Aggrieved, the appellant/writ petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal contending that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is urged that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the original impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.6 itself suffers from patent illegality, having been issued without jurisdiction and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the Aaganbadi Centre at Ghatai had become abandoned, dilapidated and dangerous, and there was every likelihood of an untoward incident occurring at any time. Due to its unsafe condition, the Gram Panchayat demolished the Centre in November 2024. As a 5 result, the appellant/writ petitioner, being compelled by circumstances, had to run the Centre temporarily from the house of one Maya Devi by paying monthly rent of Rs. 700/- from her own limited income, as evidenced from bank passbook entries. Upon request of the said Maya Devi, the appellant/writ petitioner vacated the room on 15.07.2025 and was constrained to carry out Centre activities in the courtyard of the house. During this time, owing to a child spoiling the place, she, along with the Sahayika, was cleaning the area and had seated the children under a tree for safety. At that moment, certain press reporters visited and asked why there was no proper building, and thereafter published a news report along with her statement. 9. Learned counsel submits that merely because a news report appeared, respondent No.6, in undue haste and without conducting any inquiry, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 discontinuing her service. No show-cause notice was issued; no opportunity of hearing was given; no departmental inquiry was conducted; and no material available on record was considered. Thus, the order is stigmatic, arbitrary, punitive and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further urged that the appellant/writ petitioner has been serving as an Aaganbadi Worker since 14.08.1983 and has rendered more than 42 years of unblemished service without a single complaint. She is a reputed worker, nearing retirement within three years, and her sudden removal has caused irreparable loss and 6 hardship. It is contended that she is the sole breadwinner of her family, a low-paid employee, and has no other source of livelihood. Due to over-age, she cannot seek any alternative employment, thereby causing grave injustice. 10. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.6 has no jurisdiction to terminate the services of an Aaganbadi Worker. Under Clause 13(3) of the Government Circular dated 02.04.2008, respondent No.6 can only prepare a detailed report of irregularities, if any, and forward it to the competent authority such as the Project Officer, CEO of Janpad Panchayat, Commissioner or CMO, who alone are empowered to initiate proceedings under Clauses 13(1) and 13(2). Thus, the order of termination passed by respondent No.6 is without authority and void ab initio. It is further argued that even under the governing rules, if any deficiency is found in the performance of an employee, an opportunity must first be given to improve the work, which has not been done in the present case. The allegations levelled are false, baseless and concocted, and had an opportunity been granted, the appellant/writ petitioner would have proved her innocence. 11. Learned counsel submits that despite the appellant/writ petitioner repeatedly informing the authorities regarding the dangerous condition of the Centre, no steps were taken by the respondents, and instead, she has been penalised for circumstances entirely beyond her control. The action of the respondents is therefore 7 unconstitutional, discriminatory and unsustainable in law. As such, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2025 as well as the original order dated 22.07.2025 deserve to be quashed. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the appellant/writ petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that the action taken by respondent No.6 was based on complaints and reports indicating that the Aaganbadi Centre was not being run in accordance with prescribed norms and that the children were found sitting outside under a tree in an unsafe environment. According to the State, such conduct reflects serious negligence on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner, especially considering the sensitivity of services relating to children. It is further submitted that the publication of the news report and the statements made therein clearly demonstrated administrative lapses and dereliction of duty, adversely affecting the functioning and reputation of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS). The authorities, therefore, were justified in taking corrective action in the larger interest of the children and the scheme. 13. Learned State counsel argues that running the Centre in an improper, unhygienic and unsafe location amounted to violation of the applicable guidelines, and the appellant/writ petitioner, instead of approaching the authorities for assistance, allowed the Centre 8 to function in an unsatisfactory manner. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed based on available material, and the appellant/writ petitioner cannot claim immunity from consequences of her negligence by merely citing long service. It is further contended that no procedural violation has occurred and that the appellant/writ petitioner was aware of the deficiencies pointed out. The respondent authorities have acted within their administrative domain to ensure proper functioning of the Aanganbadi Centre, and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition after considering the record. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record as also the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge being Writ Petition (S) No.10363 of 2025. 15. After considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order, which reads as follows for ready reference :- “1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by District Programme Officer, Women and Child Development Department, District Maendragrah Chirmiri Bharatpur, by which service of the petitioner who was working as Agan Badi Worker at Aganbadi Centre Ghata, District Korea has been terminated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 9 that on the false ground her service was terminated. He would further submit that Aganbadi building has been demolished by Gram Panchayat in the month of October, 2024 since than the Aganbadi centre was running in a rented house which was also demolished thereafter the Aganbadi centre was running in porch of rented house of Maya Devi. He would further submit that a journalist has sought the information regarding demolition of centre wherein she placed all the information to him and he punished the information in the newspaper on this the respondent No.6 got annoyed and has terminated the service of the petitioner on 22.07.2025 and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 3. The State was directed to verify the fact whether Aganbadi Centre is functioning at the place where the petitioner was working or not. It has been informed by the State as well as Nodal Officer that Anganbadi Centre is functioning in the building of Gram Panchayat Ghatai. This is vehemently objected by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considering the fact that since the disputed fact is involved even as per circular dated 02.04.2008 the petitioner can very well file a duly constituted appeal before the Appellate Authority who in-turn shall decide the appeal of the petitioner. It is also directed that in the event of filing of an appeal within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, the appellate authority shall not take plea of limitation and shall decide the appeal on merit of the case in accordance with the law. 10 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 16. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it transpires that the writ petition has been disposed of solely on the ground that certain disputed questions of fact were involved and that the appellant/writ petitioner ought to avail the appellate remedy provided under Clause 13 of the Circular dated 02.04.2008. However, the learned Single Judge did not examine the foundational challenge raised by the appellant/writ petitioner regarding (i) total absence of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No.6 to terminate the services of an Aanganbadi Worker, (ii) complete violation of the principles of natural justice, and (iii) the stigmatic and punitive nature of the order dated 22.07.2025. The impugned order thus does not deal with the core grounds raised in the writ petition, nor does it consider the admitted factual position regarding the dilapidated and demolished condition of the Aanganbadi Centre building, which was beyond the control of the appellant/writ petitioner. 17. It is an undisputed fact emerging from the record that the original Aanganbadi Centre at Ghatai had become unsafe, abandoned and was ultimately demolished by the Gram Panchayat in November 2024. The material placed on record also indicates that, owing to the lack of any alternative building provided by the authorities, the appellant/writ petitioner continued to run the Centre from a rented room by paying rent from her own meagre income. When the said premises were vacated on the request of 11 the house owner, the appellant/writ petitioner temporarily conducted activities in the courtyard until such time a proper structure could be made available. These circumstances stand unrebutted and clearly demonstrate that the appellant/writ petitioner was functioning under compelling and unavoidable circumstances. 18. Despite these facts being brought to the notice of the authorities, respondent No.6 proceeded to pass the order dated 22.07.2025 abruptly, without issuing any show-cause notice, without granting even an opportunity of hearing, and without conducting any enquiry or complying with the procedural safeguards prescribed under Clauses 13(1) and 13(2) of the Circular dated 02.04.2008. The said circular clearly stipulates that respondent No.6 is not the competent authority to terminate the services of an Aanganbadi Worker and may only forward a report to the competent authority for appropriate action. Thus, the impugned action is ex facie without jurisdiction and void. 19. It is a settled principle of law that any order having civil consequences or casting a stigma must be preceded by adherence to the principles of natural justice. Termination of an employee with 42 years of unblemished service, without notice, hearing, enquiry or jurisdiction, cannot be sustained by directing the employee to avail a departmental appellate remedy. The existence of an alternative remedy is no bar when the impugned 12 action is wholly without jurisdiction, procedurally illegal, and violative of natural justice. The learned Single Judge, therefore, erred in declining to adjudicate the validity of the impugned termination order and relegating the appellant/writ petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. 20. In the present case, the appellant/writ petitioner has been in continuous service since 14.08.1983 and has rendered more than four decades of dedicated service without any complaint. She is admittedly a low-paid employee, aged and nearing retirement, and livelihood of her family depends upon her income. The punitive order passed in complete breach of statutory procedure has caused grave prejudice and irreparable harm to her. The authorities themselves failed to provide any suitable building for running the Centre and instead penalised her for circumstances beyond her control. Such action is arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Article 14 and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 21. In view of the foregoing analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.6 terminating the services of the appellant/writ petitioner, are unsustainable in law, having been passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. As respondent No.6 was not the competent authority to issue such an order, both orders are liable to be set aside. 13 22. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.10363 of 2025 is hereby set aside. The impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.6 discontinuing/terminating the services of the appellant/writ petitioner is also quashed. The appellant/writ petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith with all consequential benefits as per law. 23. However, it is made clear that the competent authority shall be at liberty to pass a fresh and reasoned order in accordance with law, after affording due and effective opportunity of hearing to all concerned, if so required. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu