SHASHI PRABHA TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Anganwadi worker vide order dated 24.8.1996. While the petitioner was in Service, Collector of the District during his visit to villages between 24.5.1998 to 31.5.1998 has found social valuation of the Anganvadi workers is not satisfactory. The Collector expressed his concern. In view of the aforesaid concern, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Pohri, District Shivpuri has terminated the services of the petitioner. From the order, it appears that on account of some complaint, petitioner's services have been terminated. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and without levying allegations, services of petitioner have been terminated.

(2.) COUNSEL for respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under section 91 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Collector is the appellate authority. Since the order of termination had been passed on the instructions of the appellate authority, no fruitful purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The Collector in a dictatorial manner has directed for termination of services of the petitioner without following the provisions of law. Termination is arbitrary in nature. Without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without following the principles of natural justice, such orders cannot be passed. After insertion of part IX in the Constitution of India, panchayats are now Authorities under the Constitution of India and their constitution is governed under Article 243 of the Constitution. Articles 243 -A to 243 -0 of the Constitution relate to functioning and Constitution of Panchayats. Janpad Panchayat being a creation of the Constitution, its employees are entitled to benefit of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Therefore, any order of termination of services, without affording opportunity of hearing is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) IF the respondents feel that some misconduct is committed by the petitioner, they may initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and pass orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.