CHHAGNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Deputy Director (LCDS) cum Project Director District Woman Development Agency, Hanumangarh, whereby the services of the petitioner were discontinued as Anganwadi Worker. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker on 18.12.1995 and she discharged her duties with utmost sincerity, but respondent No. 3 has terminated her services vide impugned order dated 21.12.2006 (Annex. -14) without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any inquiry in respect of alleged irregularities on the basis of which, her services have been terminated.

(2.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the services of the petitioner were terminated after serving a notice to the petitioner and after conducting detail inquiry and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has invited attention of this Court on various documents annexed with the reply to the writ petition and has argued that several notices were issued to the petitioner pointing out irregularities in her working and various inspections were also carried out by the authority, wherein it was found that the petitioner has committed several irregularities and is not discharging her duties properly and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have terminated her services without there being any reason.

(3.) IT is clear that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on a fixed honorarium. During the various inspections, carried out by the authority, several irregularities were found in the working of the petitioner and notices were also issued to the petitioner and in response to the notices, every time, the petitioner has replied that she will not commit any irregularity in future. When the working of the petitioner was not satisfied, no fault can be noticed in the action of the respondent in discontinuing the services of the petitioner as Angangwadi Worker. It is to be noted that appointment of the petitioner was not made against the substantial post pertaining to any Rules so as to enable her to take shelter of Article 311 of the Constitution of India for challenging her termination. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any force in this writ petition. Hence the same is hereby, dismissed.