KAVITA SAHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order of termination dtd. 17/9/2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent 2-Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Chhindwara.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Asha Sahayogi vide order dtd. 5/3/2014 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent 3 and thereafter, the petitioner was given charge of Asha Paryavekshak (Supervisor) and she was performing her duties on the post without any complaint. He submits that suddenly, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dtd. 14/8/2024 (Annexure P-2) proposing disciplinary action against her with the further direction to submit reply within a period of 3 days. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner submitted reply on 15/8/2024 (Annexure P-3), but thereafter without giving any opportunity of hearing, the respondent 2 has, vide order dtd. 17/9/2024 (Annexure P-1), terminated services of the petitioner. Taking this Court to the guidelines/order dtd. 5/6/2018 (Annexure P-7) of the State Government, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without giving due opportunity of hearing. With these submissions, he submits that in absence of due opportunity of hearing, impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner, is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, (1999) 2 SCC 21 and Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal, 2001 (3) MPLJ 616.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State supports the impugned order dtd. 17/9/2024 (Annexure P-1) and prays for dismissal of writ petition with the further submissions that before passing the order of termination, petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing by issuance of show cause notice dtd. 14/8/2024 (Annexure P-2) and that the petitioner is having alternative remedy of appeal. Taking this Court to the guidelines (Annexure R-2) issued in respect of appointment and termination of Asha Paryavekshak, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has rightly been removed from the post after giving due opportunity of hearing as provided in the guidelines (Annexure R-2). Relevant extract of which, is quoted as under :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_26_LAWS(MPH)2_2025_1.jpg</IMG>