SAROJ DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court was the Anganbari Karyakarti in village Udairampur, Tehsil Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. She is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.03.2012 passed by respondent No. 2 Bal Vikas Pariyogna Adhikari, Dogadda, District Pauri Garhwal by which her services have been terminated. The petitioner was initially appointed as Anganbari Karyakarti way back in the year 2001 and prior to it there was no complaint against her. The impugned was passed by the authority concerned without giving any show cause notice or seeking any explanation from the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on the ground that she participated in the demonstration against the polluting industries at Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal and consequently on that day she did not perform her duty as Anganbari Karyakarti. The fact, however, remains that the impugned order clearly states that it was passed without prior notice to the petitioner by which her services stand terminated. Hence, the present writ petition.

(2.) Undoubtedly, the petitioner is not a civil servant. She is only working as an Anganbari Karyakarti in a Government Scheme for which she has been paid honorarium, however, the only protection which is being given to the petitioner for her work is provided under Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 24.02.2009, which gives a detail as to how Anganbari Karyakarti has to be appointed and under what circumstances their services can be terminated. In the said order, which is admitted by the State Government, it has been stated that there are certain grounds on which the services have to be terminated and on what ground the procedure has been laid down. It further says that before terminating the services of any Aganban Karyakarti her written explanation should be called and thereafter in the light of the explanation given or in the absence of such written explanation and on perusal of the enquiry report, termination order can be passed by the authority concerned. This process admittedly has not been followed in the impugned order. Moreover, from the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the authority never called any explanation from the petitioner.

(3.) Undoubtedly the petitioner was not given any opportunity. The fact remains that Rule 9 of the Government Order dated 24.02.2009 has given protection (referred above) to the Anganbari Karyakarti, which is contained in the Government Order dated 24.02.2009.