IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHA AT BILASPUR W.P. S No. Hog /2010 f, PETITIONER : Vimal Kumari Jaiswal, W/o. Ramlakhan Jaiswal, aged about 55 years, R/o. Village Amhar, Post Patna, District Korea (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Women & Child Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Korea, District Korea (C.G.) Project Officer, Ekikrit Bal Vikas Sewa Pariyojna, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) District Programme Officer, Women & Child Welfare, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) Director, Women & Child Welfare, Directorate Old Nurses Hostel Mantralaya Premises, Raipur, District Raipur (C.Gi) Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, District Korea x (C.G.) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.4051 OF 2010 PETITIONER Vimal Kumari Jaiswal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. RESPONDENTS Present: - Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 04m day of July, 201 1) 1s” 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order’ dated 5-4-2010 (Annexure — P/1) whereby the petitioner has been removed from the service on the alieged ground that she was delinquent in the performance of her duties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner 'submits that the petitioner was appointed in accordance with law, as prevalent, on the post of Aanganbadiv Worker on 05-03-1987 wherein, though, it was mentioned that if the work is not found satisfactory, the services of the petitioner may be removed at any point of time, petitioner was continued. 3. It is further submitted that since the petitioner had continued for about 24 years, there is no basis for presumption that her work was not satisfactory. Invoking clause 2 of the appointment order dated 05-03- 1987 is also not available on the same ground. The termination of the petitioner is unconstitutional, as being opposed to the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was issued several notices with regard to her conduct giving warnings from time to time from 16-08-2005. It was stated that if there was no improvement in the working of the petitioner, necessary steps may be initiated against her. On finding that-there was no improvement in the work of the petitioner, the permanent committee in its meeting held on 16-12-2009 decided to remove the petitioner from her services. As a sequel, the impugned L order dated 5-4-2010 was passed removing the petitioner from her ii ‘l services. Learned counsel further submits that having regard to the terms and conditions of the appointment order, it was not necessary to hold an enquiry or to issue show cause notice calling upon the petitioner asto why the services of the petitioner may not be removed. Thus, the impugned order passed on the basis of resolution of the permanent committee was just, proper and in accordance with law and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is well settled principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard. This is 'a case where it is found that several notices were issued to the petitioner for improvement of her work, however, no action was taken against the petitioner by imposing any punishment including the minor punishment, before the final impugned order was passed. lt is indisputable that no enquiry was held. This is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been working since 05—03—1 987 and the clause 2 of the appointment order, which has been invoked by the respondent authorities, may not be made applicable after completion of 24 years of service. lt is further well settled principle of law that even if there is no service condition prescribing for affording an opportunity of hearing, in that event also, the well settled principle of law that no order visiting with civil (evil) consequences may be passed without affording an opportunity of hearingWhas to be complied with. Having regard to the aforestated facts, if the petitioner was delinquent in the performance of her duties, as it appears to be on the basis of several letters written to the petitioner, proper enquiry ought to have been held by affording proper opportunity of hearing, but the same has not been done in the case. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated and is quashed. 10. With regard to grant of back wages, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, as it is evident that the petitioner has been informed on several occasions to improve her work. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages on the aforestated ground. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane Sd/— ~ae