IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHRATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N09Ua‘z3/ /2006 Smt. Kamla Chouhan, W/o- Sudama Chouhan, Aged about 34;?ears, Anganbadi Worker Centre-Bamali, . No- Village— Barpali, Tehsil i Sarangarh, \>gv Distt. Raigarh, ‘ y Chhattisgarh‘ PETITIONER VERSUS ~ 1. Director, / Panchayat, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, / 2. Colléctor/Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon; Chhattisgarh. x 3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayt - Baramkela, Tehsil — Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Smt. Sarita Sidar’, W/o- Shoukilal, President Health Women and Child Development Committee, Janpad Panchayat-Baramkela, Tehsil — Sarangarh, Distt‘ Raigarh. CG. Gram Panchayat— Barpali, Through- Sarpanch, Division ~ Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh, C.G. RESPONDENTS . g " / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH z BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2925 of 2006 Smt. Kamla Chouhan Versus PETITIONER RES?ONDENTS Director, Panchayat, & Others Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on ”3.0. .day of March, 201 1. I I I I I I I I I Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge WRIT PETITION NO. 2925 of 2006 PETITIONER Smt. Kamla Chouhan Versus RESPONDENTS Director, Panchayat, & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present z— Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents Shri V.K. Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Shri R.Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent No.4. r None appears on behalf of the respondent No.5, despite service of notice. No.1,2&3. ‘ (Delivered on ..~g...0.7’d‘ay of March, 201 l) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to quash the order dated 06:01.2006 (Annexure P/l 8) passed by the Director, Panchayat in Revision Case No.94/A—89/04-05, dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 09.03.2005 (Annexure P/16) passed by the Additional Collector, Raigarh in Appeal No.3/A-89/04-05, which confirmed order dated' 12.10.2004 (Annexure P/14) passed by the Chief Executive Offlcer, Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi worker on 31.03.1999. On 27.01.2004 (Annexure P/l) a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that the respondent No.4 and other members of Janpad Panchayat conducted a . surprise inspection on 22.01.2004, wherein the petitioner was found absent. The petitioner submitted her reply on 03.02.2004 (Annexure P/2) denying all the allegations leveled against her. Resolution was passed for removal of the petitioner on 04.02.2004 (Annexure P/3) and the petitioner was terminated from service on 12.02.2004 (Annexure P/4). Against the said order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short “the Adhz‘niyam, 1993 ”). The Collector Vide its order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure P/S) granted an order of status quo and finally the appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 30.06.2004 (Annexure-W6), setting aside the order dated 12.02.2004. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 09.07.2004 (Annexure P/7). Again on 29.07.2004 (Annexure P/8), the respondent No.5 passed a resolution and recommended for removal of the petitioner’ Thereafter, the l l petitioner fell sick and was on medical leave from 12.08.2004 to 26.08.2004, duly sanctioned by the authority vide order dated 12.08.2004 (Annexure P/9). During her absence, one Sushila Bai was directed to look into the affairs of the Anganbadi center, where the petitioner was posted. During the period of her absence, an enquiry was conducted by the Surveyor on 13.08.2004 and statement of Sarpanch and Panchas were rxéorded, thereafter an enquiry report was prepared on 13.08.2004 (Annexure P/lO) itself, which was _ addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela. A show cause notice was issued on 03.09.2004 (Annexure P/ll) to the petitioner by the Project Officer, Woman & Child Development, Baramkela, which was replied to by the petitioner on 09.09.2004 (Annexure P/l2) ‘ l, denying the allegations made in the Show cause notice. The respondent No.4 in the meeting of Health, Woman & Child Development Committee (for short ”the Committee”) held on 05.10.2004 (Annexure P/13), decided for removal of the petitioner and ultimately on 12.10.2004 (Annexure P/14), the respondent No.3 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela, l s removed the petitioner from his services. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal, before the Additional Collector, Raigarh. Vide its order dated 27.10.2004 (Annexure P/1_5), wherein stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. However, the appeal was finally dismissed on 09.03.2005 (Annexure P-16). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director, Panchayat, Raipur i.e. respondent No.1. The Director, Panchayat, vide its order dated 03.05.2005 (Annexure P/17) stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 09.03.2005 passed by the Additional Collector. Ultimately, the revision was also dismissed on 06.01.2006 (Annexure P/l 8) by the respondent No.1. Thus, this petition. w 4. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would J r submit that the whole action of the respondent authorities are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Earlier, the petitioner was terminated on the same allegations, which was set aside by the appellate authority and the petitioner was reinstated in service. The resolution of the Committee goes to show that the intention of the respondents, specially, the respondent No.4 & 5 was to anyhow remove the petitioner from services. The statutory procedure for removal of an Anganbadi worker was no‘efollowed before passing the termination order. The Supervisor conducted’the enquiry behind the back of the petitioner, when she was on leave and only on the basis of statement of Sarpanch & Up—sarpanch, and the petitioner has been held guilty for the alleged misconduct. Shri Shrivastava, would further submit that after her reinstatement in service on 09.07.2004 again a resolution was passed for removal of the petitioner on the basis of mere apprehension and ultimately the petitioner was removed from service on 12.10.2004. 5. Shri Sushil Dubey, learned Govemment Advocate and Shri V.K. Agrawal, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submit in support of the impugned orders. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.5, despite service of notice. The order dated 30.06.2004, whereunder, the removal of the petitioner was set aside, was passed on the ground that due process of law was not followed Wg , accordance with the provisions of law. On the basis of resolution of Gram the Proj ect Officer, Woman & Child Welfare Department, would I i l conduct the enquiry either itself or through a Surveyor and thereafter submit within a period of three weeks. It was held that the complaint/ report ‘ report of Gram Panchayat was dated 17.08.2002 and thereafter enquiry inspection the was done only on 20.01.2004, which was against the rules. It i K ‘ place was further held that until recommendation was made by the Project Officer, Woman & Child Welfare Department, no order of removal can be passed by Panchayat. In view of that the resolution dated 04.02.2004, and . Janpad the order dated 12.02.2004 were quashed and the petitioner was reinstated. a .L Thereafter, 0n 29.07.2004, a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat, Baramkela to remove the petitioner on the ground that there were in conduct of the Anganbadi center. The petitioner had not ‘ ‘ taken care of studies of children and misbehaved with members of Gram Panchayat. On the basis of resolution, an enquiry was directed by the Project ’, I Officer and report was submitted by the Project Officer to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela on 13.08.2004 (Annexure P/lO), wherein the finding was recorded as under : F/ “1) anatmhmfaaamm magma eaten x—xnet %| l { 2) qtsrut arrsTx' W mm a m k anti—wit W01 aft arch €l trim Ran 1t ah qtsrw sneR Wot net ‘‘~ m 11111 2111 3) 11% 1111a atnmmta‘t mate-cit m W l aaumm,ua,Waa§ We an 113a a ea at m e % Iiimita$wg€éaewmm e I” Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner responded thereto. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, as the enquiry was conducted in his absence, is unsustainable, as the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing in a show cause notice dated 03.09.2004 to which the petitioner by a detailed reply dated 09.09.2004 (Annexure P/12), has submitted her response. Thus, the defect, as pointed out by the Additional Collector in his order dated 30.06.2004, on the basis of which, removal order dated 12.02.2004 was set aside, has been cured in the subsequent process, adopted by the respondents before removing the petitioner from the post of Anganbadi worker. The Director, Panchayat, in its impugned order dated 06.01.2006 has examined all the facts in detail and this Court do not find any infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in the impugned order. The second contention of the petitioner was that he was absent during the period, inspection was done, has no bearing on the case, as his overall conduct was enquired into by the Surveyor and a report was submitted accordingly. The petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of hearing thereafter. (See: Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Othersl and P.D.Agrawal v. Stale Bank oflna’ia & 0thers2). The petitioner has not pointed out any prejudice caused to him when the enquiry was held on the basis of resolution /complaint made by the Gram Panchayat. The finding of t ‘ the Surveyor is clear and unambiguous and the same was not on the basis of any apprehension, but on the basis of past conduct of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Chairman & Managing Director, VSP. & Others v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Baa3 observed as under : “20. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to‘ interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well—known factors. It cannot set aside a well- reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (See : Maruti Udyog Limited v. Ram Lal, State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Alishra, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra, State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi, State ofMP. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak 1 (2005) 5 SCC 337 2 (2006) 8 SCC 776 3 (2008) 5 SCC 569 , . ,..Tr. u T Ti i \6 6 and Uttar Haryana Bzj‘li Vitran Nigam Ltd. v‘ Surji Devi). 21. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See: Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union oflndz'a). 22. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a lega order.” Applying the well settled principles of law to the fact no perversity, illegality or irregularity have been found in the enquiry and this Court declines to interfere with the impugned orders. s of the case, wherein 11. subsequent action, 12. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. L Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok l