IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1580/2007 Decided on.6.5.2008 Seema Devi. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. : Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate vice Mr. Piyush Verma, for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that strictly as per the schem/guidelines for the engagement of Anganwadi Worker/Anganwadi Helpers on honorarium basis under ICDS Scheme run by Social Justice and Empowerment Department, the petitioner submitted an application for being considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker. She was interviewed on 19th July, 2007. The appointment letter was issued to her on 1st August, 2007. She submitted her joining on 8th August, 2007. A notice was issued to 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 the petitioner on 18th August, 2007 stating therein that on the basis of the inquiry it was found that she was not eligible for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Centre Ukhoo, Post Office Lagada Ghat, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Her appointment was cancelled from the date of her joining. She was called upon to file objection to the notice dated 18th August, 2007 within a period of 5 days. She submitted reply to the notice dated 18th August, 2007 on 21st August, 2007. The Child Development Project Officer, Nalagarh again issued a notice to the petitioner on 21st August, 2007 to the effect that why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against her (first information report/case). She filed a detailed reply to this notice on 21st August, 2007. The petitioner had placed documents on record to substantiate that her brother-in-law was not residing with her at the time when she was considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker i.e. 19th July, 2007. Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner had strenuously argued that the petitioner was entitled to show cause notice as per para 7 of the Scheme (Annexure P-1) dated 11th April, 2007. He also contended that his client has not been associated with any inquiry as mentioned in notice dated 21st August, 2007. He has denied that his client was ever called personally to explain the position as mentioned in letter dated 18th August, 2007 on 16th August, 2007. He further contended that respondent No.4 has in fact filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner assailing the appointment of the petitioner, but the same was withdrawn by her. 3 The learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had supported the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. What appears from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that pursuant to the interview held on 19th July, 2007, petitioner has been offered appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. She joined her duties on 8th August, 2007. A detailed procedure has been prescribed for the removal of the Anganwadi Worker in scheme i.e. Annexure P-1. Para 7 of the scheme reads thus: “7. Removal.- Anganwadi Worker and Helper are honorarium workers. For any act of misconduct, misbehaviour and for non-performance of her duties the services of an Anganwadi Worker or Helper can be terminated after serving 15 days notice giving reasons to be recorded in writing. The termination order will be issued by the concerned Child Development Project.” In the present case it appears from the record that respondent No.4 has lodged a complaint against the selection of the petitioner on 20th August, 2007 as per the averments contained in the reply to the petition. Respondent No.4 also filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner assailing the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner as per para 7 of the scheme was required to be served with 15 days notice and she could be removed only after giving reasons to be recorded in writing. It is apparent from the contents of Annexure P-6 dated 18th August, 2007 that the 4 petitioner has been removed on 18th August, 2007 from her date of joining i.e. 8th August, 2007. This was not permissible under law. She was entitled to clear 15 days notice. There was no occasion for the Child Development Project Officer as mentioned in notice dated 18th August, 2007 to ask the petitioner orally to say something in her defence on 16.8.2001. She was required to be served with a notice as stipulated and thereafter after hearing the petitioner appropriate order could be passed that too by assigning cogent reasons. The learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Harish Dod, Advocate have failed to point out during the course of hearing that any notice was served upon the petitioner before removing her. In fact, the petitioner was removed on 18th August, 2007 and thereafter her objections were called to be furnished by her within 5 days. In fact, the petitioner had filed reply to the notice dated 18th August, 2007 and the same has not been taken into consideration even in second notice dated 21st August, 2007. In notice dated 21st August, 2007, it is mentioned that some inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The respondents have not placed any inquiry report on record to substantiate that the inquiry in fact was conducted and the petitioner was also associated during the course of the inquiry. Any inquiry, if any, has been conducted, the petitioner was required to be associated with the same. Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate had strenuously argued that at no given time his client was associated with the inquiry as mentioned in notice dated 21st August, 2007. The petitioner has been removed on 18th August, 2007. She submitted her reply on 21st August, 2007 5 and on the same day i.e. 21st August, 2007 another notice threatening the petitioner that why departmental proceedings be not initiated against her was issued. She furnished detailed reply to the notices. Every thing has happened in hot haste. Respondent No.4 was also offered appointment on 28th August, 2007. She was permitted to join her duties on 29th August, 2007. The appeal preferred by respondent No.4 was withdrawn. In reply, by way of preliminary objection, respondent No.4 had specifically mentioned that the complaint was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 20th August, 2007. If the complaint itself was made on 20th August, 2007; there was no reason for terminating the services of the petitioner on 18th August, 2007. The petitioner had placed sufficient material on record to establish that she was living separately from her brother-in-law Sh. Ram Krishan. Whether any member of the petitioner’s family was in Government/Semi-Government employment could only be ascertained by hearing the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner has not been offered reasonable opportunity of being heard even as per the scheme and the order dated 18th August, 2007 whereby the petitioner’s appointment has been cancelled is liable to be interfered with. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-6 dated 18th August, 2007 and Annexure P-7 dated 21st Agust, 2007 are quashed and set aside. The appointment of respondent No.4 dated 28th August, 2007 Annexure R-4/C along with joining report dated 29th August, 2007 is also quashed and set aside. The 6 respondent No.3 is directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner as per the scheme. The petitioner will be permitted to file her reply and thereafter a speaking order will be passed by the competent authority. Till then the petitioner will be permitted to discharge her duties as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Ukhoo, Post Office Lagada Ghat, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. pursuant to her initial joining dated 8th August, 2007. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge May 6, 2008 *Awasthi*