1 2025:CGHC:2839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1174 of 2018 Smt. Savitri Singh D/o Puran Singh Aged About 28 Years Working On The Post Of Anganbadi Worker, R/o Village Ghatgaon, Post Aara, Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5. Project Officer, Unified Child Development Project Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Jha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16/01/2025 (1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of 2 hearing. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order vide (Annexure P/1) dated 10.01.2018, passed by the respondent no. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits. 10.4 Any other relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case along with cost of the petition (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Mini Anganwadi Centre Ghutripara, Ghatgaon, Janpad Panchayat-Rajpur, District- Balrampur Rmanujganj (C.G.) vide order dated 30.09.2008 and her services were transferred to Anganwadi Centre Dakai Bevra within the same Janpad Panchayat vide order dated 23.05.2011. He further submits that on account of illness, the petitioner failed to join her services for a period of 1 ½ years but she moved applications for the grant of leave before the superior authorities. He contends that the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur i.e. respondent No. 4 vide the general order dated 28.05.2016 removed the petitioner from service on account of unauthorized absence from 24.06.2015 till 28.05.2016. He further contends that a guideline has been issued by the State of Chhattisgarh with regard to the recruitment and removal of services of Anganwadi Workers, Anganwadi Assistants and Mini Anganwadi Workers on 02.04.2008. He argues that Clause 13 of the said guideline deals with the removal from services of Anganwadi Workers and Assistants however respondent No. 4 failed to conduct any inquiry according to Clauses 13(1) and (2), therefore, the order of removal is bad in law. He further argues that the Collector, Balrampur as well as the 3 Commissioner, Sarguja Division also failed to consider this aspect of the matter. He prays to quash the order dated 28.05.2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur, the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Collector Balrampur and the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner Surguja Division. (3) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective respondents oppose. They submit that the petitioner remained absent from services without authorization for a period of 1 ½ years from 24.06.2015 till 28.05.2016. They state that this petition deserves to be dismissed. (4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. (5) Evidently, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 30.09.2008. It is stated in the writ petition that on account of illness, she could not discharge her duties from 24.06.2015 till the passing of the order by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur (28.05.2016), therefore, her services were terminated by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur. The order dated 28.05.2016 shows that the services of many Anganwadi Workers and Assistants were terminated on account of unauthorized absence. The guideline issued by the Women and Child Welfare Department, State of Chhattisgarh dated 02.04.2008 is a complete code regarding recruitment and removal of Anganwadi Workers, Anganwadi Assistants and Mini Anganwadi Workers. Clause 13 of the guideline deals with the removal from services of Anganwadi Workers and Assistants. It states that after receipt of the complaint(s), an inquiry would be conducted by the concerned Project 4 Officer which shall be referred to the concerned CEO of the Janpad Panchayat and if the allegation(s)/complaint(s) is/are found proved against such Anganwadi Worker/Assistant, 15 days’ time will be granted to the delinquent to file a reply to the allegation/show-cause notice and thereafter, the matter would be referred to the concerned CEO of the Janpad Panchayat, who on the recommendation of a committee, may pass the order of termination from service. Clause 13(5) of the guidelines states that if an Anganwadi Worker/Assistant remains absent from service for a period of more than one month and the report is received from the Project Officer, a decision with regard to termination of services can be taken according to the provisions contemplated under Clauses 13(1) and (2). (6) In the present case, the petitioner remained absent from services for a period of 1½ years which is a considerable period but (i) no inquiry was conducted; (ii) no show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner; (iii) the recommendation of the committee was also not obtained and (iv) the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur suo-moto proceeded to terminate the services of petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the procedure followed by the CEO, Janpad Panchayat Rajpur appears to be erroneous, therefore its order dated 28.05.2016 is hereby quashed. As a result, orders passed by the Collector Balrampur and the Commissioner Surguja Division dated 09.08.2017 and 10.01.2018, respectively, are also quashed. (7) The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith. With regard to arrears of salary, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation before the competent authority describing the fact that she was not employed anywhere else gainfully 5 during this period. (8) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. However, as the respondent authorities failed to follow provisions contemplated in Clauses 13(1) and (2) of the guideline, they shall be at liberty to initiate a fresh inquiry, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya