MINATI SUNA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order of termination under Annexure -1 dated 26 -8 -1996.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that she was working in the Sarbodaya Samity from 1980 to 1990 and in the year 1990 she was selected for the post of Anganwadi worker and was appointed as such at Chipakur Anganwadi Centre in the district of Koraput. While the petitioner was continuing as such she received the order of termination dated 26 -8 -96, Further case of the petitioner is that before termination she had not been afforded any opportunity at all to defend herself and there was complete violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) SHRI Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the contention of the State counsel that notice to show cause had been issued to the petitioner. This Court by order dated 29 -8 -2000 directed the learned State Counsel to produce therecords and pursuant to the said order records were produced in court. Notices on which reliance is placed by the learned State counsel are dated 24 -7 -1996, 10 -7 -1996 and 31 -1 -1996. It is stated by the State counsel that these three notices had been sent to the petitioner prior to termination, but the petitioner did not give any reply to the said notices. Copies kept in the records do not show that notices were served on the petitioner. Learned State counsel also fairly concedes that copies of the notices relied upon by him do not indicate that they were either sent by registered post or served in person. On the other hand, it appears that on 26 -7 -1996 some villagers complained before the Child Development Project Officer that the petitioner was not staying in the village and was coming to the Centre two three times in a month and was staying for two to three days. On the said complaint an endorsement was made on the same very day directing the petitioner to handover detail charges to the Helper to avoid further complaint and resentment. On the basis of the endorsement the impugned order of termination was passed on 26 -8 -1996. It is event from the said document that no enquiry was made with regard to complaint made by the villagers and the petitioner was directed to handover charge to the helper on the very same day. It further appears from the record that till the order of termination was passed on 26 -8 -1996 the petitioner had not been given any notice to show cause as to why her services shall not be dispensed with. Notices on which reliance is being placed by the learned State counsel cannot be accepted in absence of any material to show that the same were served on the petitioner either in person or by post.