SEEMA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Kalehra-II on 10.8.2007. One Sh. Yash Pal Thakur sought information with regard to list of beneficiaries of Anganwari Centre, Kalehra-II and the detail of the rations received and distributed with effect from 1.8.2010 to 31.1.2011. It appears that inspection of Anganwari Centre, Kalehra-II was carried out and the details whereof were supplied to the petitioner vide Annexure P-3 on 4.6.2011. Petitioner was also informed about the cuttings, over-writing and use of white fluid vide Annexure P-4 dated 21.9.2011. She was directed to appear before the Directorate of Woman and Child Development Department, Himachal Pradesh, vide Annexure P-5. Petitioner was again informed on 3.2.2011 vide Annexure P-6 about the cuttings, over- writing and use of white fluid and distribution of excess ration. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the same vide Annexure P-7 dated 14.12.2011. Petitioner has given detailed explanation about the cuttings, over-writing and use of white fluid and distribution of rations. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice vide Annexure P-8 dated 9.3.2012. She was called upon to submit her explanation/report within 15 days, failing which she would be deemed to have been removed from service as per para 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Services. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the show cause notice on 24.3.2012 (Annexure P-9). The Child Development Project Officer sent the case to the Director seeking approval to remove the petitioner. Thereafter, letter dated 14.6.2012 was prepared. However, the same was not supplied to the petitioner. She was orally directed not to attend the office from 16.6.2012.

(2.) MR. Sanjeev K. Suri has vehemently argued that services of the petitioner has been terminated without complying with the mandatory conditions of the scheme notified vide Annexure P-10. He has also argued that the petitioner has maintained the records as per law and wherever there was any mistake; it was rectified by doing the needful. He has further argued that the reply filed by the petitioner on 24.3.2012 has not been taken into consideration.

(3.) PETITIONER has been appointed as Anganwari Worker on 10.8.2007. According to Annexure P-6, the following items in excess were distributed by the petitioner: