‘§N W% m@w$ ammq mq“awm$ manhmwwm¢AMwV ¢mmmmm . x www%mmm ¢_ , OCauw‘m; ”EVE Hal \ ml _/§¥; m: AFR yuan com or Jumcuuam cnmn‘xsGAm-x: slmswn ‘ Singe Bench: Hon’ble shri Sathh K. Apihotxl. J. W. P. No. 5895 uf 2000 Pctiiioner Smt. Uttarabai w Versus Respondcnts : State of Matlhya Pradcsh, thmugh we Secretaxy, Mahila Avam Ba! Vikas 83 othcxs Shri P.K. Bhadun', counsel for the peu‘u‘oner. Shn' N.K. Agmwal, Dcputy Advocatc General with Shn' Sah‘sh Gupm, Deputy Government Advecafe for the respondents No. 3 to 5 None appears for the respondents No. 1 and 6. OEER aw- Novemba, zoos) 1. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker] Helper aad was posted at Damapur, by antler dated 19:3.1998 (Annexure P/3). The peu‘tioner was removed mm sezvice, by order dated 5.5.1999 (Annexuxe P/ 10), on the goundihat there was irmgulan'ty in the appointment of the pen'tioner, as her rmlative is an on‘ire bemer of village/’Jangmd Pmhaya, Damapur. 2. Being aggrieved,the pennoner preferred an appeal befoxe the Commissioner (Revenue), Raipur. The Commissbner, wer having considemd, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.2.2000 (Annexure P] 11). 3. Being aggrieved, the pen'tioner has iiled this writ peiition under Arn'cle 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ/direction to quash the impugned orders dated 5.5.1999 (Annexare Pl 10) passed by the mspondent No. 4 and 29.2.2006 (Anncxure P] 1 1) passed by the respondent No. 3. .The main contemion of the petitioner - is that the respondents/authorities have not followad the procedure pmscribed under “the executive instrucu‘ons dated 27.5.1996 (Annexure P/ 1), whemby it is clearly provided that before removing the Anganwadi Workers/Helpers, the pmcedme r prescn'bedis that in case of sexious compiaiht against the Anganwadi Workers/Helpem, the concerned 6mm Panchayat would be nequired to pass a resolution for the same and be sent to the &1pervisor. The Supervisor, after haVing examined the complaint, would fake steps for temoval of the Anganwadi Workers/Helpexs. It is no Where pmvx‘led that the concerned employee is to be heard or an oppoltunity of hearing be amarded to him before imposing the punishment of removal. . It is well settled principle of law that any order, which is ptmitive in nature and visits with civil consequences, Ms to be passed after ad'ording pxoper opportunity of hearing to the ooncemed employee, the pxinciple ofvnatmsl justice and fainplay in aetion is only unveiling all the administmtive orders, even if the simular does not prescribe hem the same. The princiyle of natuml justice has to be followed in all the cases whom any order, whirh is punitive in nature, is passed. . In the facts of the piesent case, it is admitted position thaa bmther-in-law of the petitioner namely Dhanawa Ram was Up-sarpanch in the same (3mm Panchayat‘ i.e. Gmm Panohayat, Damapur. In such situation, it is not necessary to hold the equiry, as tbg order is not passed on the basis of any complaint or sexious inegulmities. 7. The circular dated 27.5. 96 (Annexu P] 1) dearly provides mat 19 m no person, who is ear mlative or either govamment employae or elected or nominated member of the oEce healer of the V Panchayat Raj Initute or local bodies, would be appointed ‘asl st Anganwadi Workers] elpem. owever, Anganwadi workers/helpers ar appointed as pancyayat worker within a particular area and as such demxition of relau‘ve can be taken the mm the provisions of the Madhya Pmdesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (kr short “the Adhiniyam, I993”). The wod ‘rela‘live" use in the Adhiniyam, 1993 is in, r d Pari-Materia with the wor “relative” used in the circular “The d > application of this rule of construction has the merit of avoiding any apparent contradiction between a series of statutes dealing” with the same ubject” (Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Shri Guru Prasanna Sing, enth Edition, 2006, page 278); ”Relative” has been denned in Section 69 of the Adhiniyam,’ 1993, which reads a under:- s “69. 2[Provided further that a person shall not hold charge e of a Secretary of Gram Panchayat, if such a person happens to be relative of any omce bearer of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Explanation.- for the purpose of this snb~sectim1 the expression "relative" shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, father-in~law, brother- in‘law, sistervin law, son-in~law, daughter—in-lawJ” n n H H e s h T @’ 8. In the caso of Viveka Nand Seth! vs. chairman, J as K Bw’ Ltd. and othersl, the Supmme Court observed in pam 22 a under h “22‘ The principle of natural justice, it is hite, is no unruly horse. When facts axe admitted,“ an enquixy‘ would be an"emi»ty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. [See Gwjeewan Garewal (Di-J v. Dr. Sundtra Dash3.} The plinciples of natural justicc are mquired to be complied with having mgand to the fact situation obtaining tharein. It cannot be put m a straitjackct formula. It cannot be applied in a mcuum Without mfemnce to the relevant facts and cimnmstances of the case. (See Siate of Pmy’ab v.‘ Jagir Singh‘ and Kamatalca 3m vi 5.6a Kotiurappai)" There is no doubt or conma on the point that the petitioner‘s near relative Le. brother-in—law is elected Up‘sarpanch of the same Gram Panchayat and as such she was not entitled to hoid the post. Therefore, disqualihed for being posted as Anganwadi worker. The fact of being “telau've” of elected Up—sarpanch is admitted and as such an enquixy would be an empty $rmality. 10. For the reasons stated—above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9‘ . 7, ,hvi Bablu Sdt- rf‘ t$atish K. Agnihotri‘ Judge «2005) 5 soc 337; s