KANSA Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 2258/2015 are narrated hereunder. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2015 passed by the Project Officer, ICDS, Jhabua by which the services of the petitioner have been put to an end. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a resident of Tribal Village Aamli Phaliya, District Jhabua and she was posted at Aanganwadi Centre in the same village. She was appointed on 11.2.2008. She has undergone various trainings conducted by the Department from time to time and there was no complaint of any kind against the petitioner except the impugned termination order. The contention of the petitioner is that the her services have been put to an end by stating that she is residing at village Khagjhar and based upon the aforesaid allegation, her services have been put to an end. The petitioner has also stated that as many as 84 identically placed Aanganwadi workers who were continuing with the Department for more than two decades have been thrown out by passing a cyclostyle order. It has also been stated that in the impugned order dated 9.3.2015, the Project Officer has left written the name of the village by Pen at two places and similar identical orders have been passed in 84 cases. The contention of the petitioner is that there is a policy issued by the State Government for appointment of Aanganwadi workers dated 10.7.2007 and the same provides for a detailed procedure for terminating an Aanganwadi worker. It has been categorically stated that at no point of time any enquiry took place in the matter and the petitioner has been thrown out of the job in a most mechanical manner by the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 9.3.2015 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and it has been filed under the signatures of the same officer who has issued the termination order and it has been stated that the petitioner was residing at a distance of about 5 kms. from the place of posting. The respondents have stated that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

(3.) The respondents have stated that they have issued a show cause notice and they have in closed a show cause notice at page 90. The aforesaid show cause notice does not relates to the petitioner. The respondents have also stated that they have received instructions from the higher authorities to issue instructions to all Aanganwadi worker to reside at their place of posting. The respondents have enclosed letter dated 10.9.2014 by which the Collectors were directed to issue instructions to Aanganwadi workers and other employees to reside at their place of posting. The aforesaid letter which is also on record makes it very clear that opportunities were to be granted to Aanganwadi workers by issuing notices, however, no such notices are on record as were required to be given to Aanganwadi worker vide letter dated 10.9.2014. Respondents have stated that they have conducted a fact finding enquiry and as the petitioner was not residing at the place of posting, they have passed the impugned order.