5.y'^^^v'^"^^<u^-^:^'^^^^^-^^ wK»«SS •i,^:®SA ^JJj ?:?^l£ 118 '•9 (^•^: .', •:.,1:, • . 'N'.1 '' :' j ^^.'' .l'o^ ,IN iE !" BI.GH .G©mitEOF iJ©BI€A<WB@AT ^^BA&ra&lH.P. iia ¥KIT PM$IGN M6u.ta^ 20@0 PgtITIONEKBX •aat.arii&A0HA N.^BA,; ;'. ,! ^ , .'.^ tife of Shri ciihatrapal Stiagh, Aged about 54 years, Village Natoa, Mottalla Bfaa<araitola,Tehsil Peadra B©ad» Bl striet-Bilaspttr,M.P.• vm93s RESPOND-ENTS • :1- . ', eO tCSgEOME;R| 7(^^ ^t-i ;. 8- ,[*j ^ ^^1^ ^ds.1?"3^ 7A6^ 2- 4- B i vl sloa BA l|aspur,Bistt.Bit.laspur< Addltlenal PeBdra Koad, Gjollect©r, ,l3lstrlGt-BllaspQr,M.JP. Jaafad PaHeNayajt Throagh Ghle|f Tehsil Pendrla Pa&efaaylat Grram BlooM: Marwahji Distrtct Bl; 'ajt-MaOTraMt.^ •'• 1 .;' . .. :',—. Sxe:outi-.ve .©ffl-oer,:'^'i: .•^ j .Rt3,ad ^Bistri,ot-Btllasgar<j: i;S im tea, , Telisl|l Peadra Boad, IJas^liTyM,!?.' :: ; .',.. ^t.eita Bal ¥lfe of Harl Siteh, B/o ot Village Nafea Bl©efe^arw|aM, a?e&sll Peadra B@a^, Dl strlet-Bl ^aspitir,M.P.. 6- Project Olfl! I^itegrated cerjy 1 i, l|a Bevelopmesit, €SM: Servteesl'Mai|waNt|,. Tetost.^,Pen€ra^]|l|^d:lt •\©lstriet-Bl'l{asp^r,^*P:^;..,: l].;l'.:'.:^i:!.?i;T;lrj G@ajtG[.4:*2.5 1%¥ "-1 /2/ 7- Smt.Bela Bal, Bx-Sarpaach, Graxi Paaoliayat Naka? Bloek Mar^aM^Tehstl. Peiidra Road,Blstrict» Bilaspur,M»P<o / 8- State of Madhya PradesJi^ t.Iirougli Seeretary^ HaMla Avam Bal Vlkas Maatralaya, Vallabh BIiawan,Bnopal,M.P. WSIT PSTITION 'OKBBB AaTIGLES 226/227 OF TBE CONSTiroTION OF IN0IA ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON»BLESHRI MANINDRA. MOHJ^ SHRIVASTAVA^J. Writ Petitioa No.1945/2000 Bs?^;:-^^;^ PETITIONER RB8PONDENT8 Sint, Anuradha Kushrain Versus Coininissioner, Division BUaspur, Distt. BUaspur & ofhers ORDER .4^ POm' QN ^OJULY,2Q10 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge r ^•^^^ '%. 1 w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SmGLB^ENCH_: HON'BLE SHR3 MAWIHDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. i|1111S?^;:at^^^^SS PETITIONER RBSPONDENTS WritPetiVoa^ N0.1945/2000 Snit, Anuradha Kushram Versixs Coinniissioner, Division Bilaspiu\ Distt, Bilaspur & ofhers Wr£tPetition uader Article 226/227 of tfae^onstitution oOndia Appearag&ee: Dr, Rajesh Paiidey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chaadresh Srivastava, Paael Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1, 2 & 6. None for otlier respoudents. ORDER (Passed on }0 .07.2010) 1, Case of fhe petitioner is tliat she was appointed as Angaiibadi Worker vide order dated 8.4,1998 (Annexure P-5). Later on, anofher order of appoiataient was issued in. favour of the petitioner vide order dated 19,6.1998 (Annexure P-6). On certaui coisiplahits, Additional CoUector, /respondent No.2; issued a direction on 10.5.1999 to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Marwahi/respondent No.3 to termiiiate tlie services of fhe petitiouer, on the ground fhat the petitioner was uot qualified for being appointed. Thereafter, a show- cause notice was issued by fhe Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad Paiichayat, Marwahi to the petitioiier on 20th May, 1999 (Annexurc P-7) •"•^. '^. -2- •^^m 'i •-v^ y ^^^^y. iQ.fonning fhat in aa enquiry, Additioual CoUector/respoudent No.2 found fhat fhe petitioner is not quaUfied for beiag appoiated as Angaabadi Worker and, tlierefore, the petitioner inay submit her reply, failiag which, ex-parte action would be taken. According .to the petitioner, tiie aforesaid notice was received by her on 26.5.1999 aad, fherefore, a reply was subiuitted by the petitioner on 29,5.1999 (Annexure P-9), After siibmission of reply of fhe petiuonex', no order was passed by fhe Chief Executive Officer, Jaapad Paiichayat Marwahi aiid the petitioner was treated as termiaated ia view of fhe order dated 10.5.1999 of rcspondent No.2/Additional Collector. An appeal was preferred by tlie peUtioner agamst order dated 10,5.1999 passed by respondent No-2/Additional Collector, but by tlie impugned order dated 15.11,1999 (Annexure P-1), the Commissioner dismissed the appeal, againstwhich, the petitioner had initially preferred a revision to the State Goverameut, but wifhout awaitmg the order passed by tlie State Goveraiaent, iastant petition has been preferred on the sub3iiission fhat such a revision is not inaiatainable, as the provisions of M.P./C.G. Panchayat (Appeal & Revisiou) Rules, 1995 is not appUcable, because ia the inatter of appoiatoient aiid rem.oval of the petitioner, M.P./C.G, Paachayat Raj Adhiaiyaai, 1993 itself is not appHcable. 2. AssaiUng the legality and validity of tlie order passed by the Comniissioner/respondent No.l by which earUer order of tennination dated 10,5.1999 passed by the Additional CoUector/respondent No.2 was coiifirmed, learaed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of teiTairiation of petitioner's services was taken by fhe Additional Collector on fhe basis of sonie iaquiiy held behiad tiie back '^. "l;.>.&^;\ -3- of fhe petitioner aiid wifh.out affordiag aay opportunity of headng. It is also argiied that fhe Chief Executive Officer issued a show cause-notice to the petitioner on 20th May, 1999 (Annexiire A-7) which was received by tlie petitioner only on 26.5.1999 aiid the petitioner repMed on 29.5,1999, on which, uo decision was taken, nor aay order has been passed. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner further contended that an. appeal was preferred before ttie Coininissioner, whereia the Comniissioner wrongly held tliat uncle-ia-law (^ ^T^) was elected as Panch of fhe Gram Paiichayat conceraed arxd, Uierefore, as per the scheme of appouitaient of Auganbadi Worker, petitioner was disquaUfied froni being appoiated, Furfher subniission is that the Additioual CoUector had no junsdiction aiid autliority to pass any order of termioLation aad the Chief Executive Officer alone was conipetent to take decision ni tihie niatter, but, he acted on fhe dictates aad command of the Additional CoUector. It is also contended tiiat the appoiatment of the petitioner as Angaabadi Worker was outside the pur^iew of Paachayat Raj Adhiaiyam, 1993 and, fherefore, neith.er fhe said Act is appUcable ia fh.e inatter of appouitaient of petitioner, nor the provisions ofPanchayat (Appeal & Revisiou) Rules, 1995 are appHcable. It has also been argued fhat even one Srat. Gita Bai/respondent No.5 was not eatifled to be appoiated, whose appoiataient was set aside by fhe Coniniissioner, but tih.eu wrongly holdiag the petitioner as disquaUfied, fhe appeal was disiaissed. 3. On the otlier haad, subinission ofleanied couxisel for fhe respondents No, 1, 2 &6 is that upon receipt of coniplaiat, tiie Additional CoUector held an enquiry aad havmg found that the petitioner was not qualified, directed tlie Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Paachayat, Marwahi vide -4- S 'm^M^ 1 ';:.c:S's '''%:..-.-....^•••^ b- & t2^. its letter dated 8.5.1999 (Annexure R-l) to termmate fhe servdces ofthe petitioner aad appomt one Smt. Gita Bai/respondent No.5, who, accordiiig to the Additional Collector, was qualified for being appoiated as Angaabadi Worker, 4, I have considered the rival submissions made by leamed counsel for tlie parties aiid perused fhe record. 5. Froni tlie pleadiags aad inaterial on record, it is revealed fhat on certaia coniplaints, Additional CoUector issued iateraal nienio dated 8.5,1999 (Annexure R-l) dii'ectiiig the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchyat, Marwahi to tenmnate the ser^ices of fhe petitioner ou the ground fhat Snit. Gita Bai/respondent No.5 was better qualified and entitled to preferential treatinent being one belongiiig to the family of a person categorized as below poverty Ime famUy aiid that the petitioner is merely 8th pass, whereas Smt Gita Bal/respondeut No.5 obtmned 59% of inarks. Before issuiag such direction, adniittedly, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Chief Executive OfScer, Jaupad Panchyat, Marwalii issued show-cause notice to tlie petitioner on 20th May, 1999 (Annexure P-7) requiruig the petitioner to subrait her reply and appear before hun on 24.5.1999, Petitioner has iiiade categoric pleading fhat the said notice was received by her on 26.5.1999 aad a photocopy of postal receipt has beeu placed on record showiag delivery on 26.5.1999. In the rcturu, respondents have vaguely stated fhat the petitioner was given sufl&cient opportunity before passing tlie order of teroiisiation, However, no iiiaterial has been placed ou record to prove that the Botice dated 20th May, 1999 was duly senred npon the petitioner on or before 24.5.1999. Petitioner, in paragraph 5,10 oftiie -5- ^^ j ^sy '!^^^^;: ^ ta. petition; has categorically stated that after receipt ofnotice dated 20dl May, 1999 on 26.5.1999, she submitted her reply on 29.5.1999 (Annexiire P-9), but, fhereafter, no order was passed. However, respondents, iii reply to aforesaid averment of the petitioner, have given a veiy vague aad evasive reply ia pai-agraph-13 of their retiim., wherein, it has been firsUy averred that it is not necessaiy to pass any order aad then it has been averred tliat tlie order of tennuiation has been passed and there is no need of speakiag order, Said avernients are not capable of aay definite meaiiiag, Respondents have not placed aay order passed by tiie Chief Executive Officer pursuaat to his notice dated 20th May, 1999 aad, fherefore, an inference has to be drawn that . no order was passed tiiereafter, 6. Curiously enough, when ttie appeal was filed by the petitioner before thie Coniraissioner/respondeut No.l, fhe CoDiinissioner cUssaissed fhe petitioner's appeal on the ground fhat petitioner was disqiiaUfied ia view of tih.e fact tiiat fhe elder brottier of petitioner's fafher-ia-law was aa elected Pan.ch of fh.e conceraed Grani Paachayat. This was neither a ground on which fhe Additional CoUector directed terinio.ation of petitioner's services, nor fhe Chief Executive Officer has passed any order holdiag fhat fhe petitioner was disquali&ed ou such a ground of beiag relative of a Panch of Gram Paachayat. On fhe ofher hand, the petitioner has pleaded ia paragraph-5. 12 of fhe petition fhat tlie iincle-ia-law of the petitioner was not Paach of Gram Paachayat -Naka aad in support fhereof, a certificate (Aiinexure P-11) has been placed on record certifymg that fhe uncle-ia-law ofthe petitioner was neifher Paiich, nor nominated as nieinber of the Gi'ain Paachyat-Naka. There is no spectfic denial of this factual aspect nor ^^ ,. '^::-1" •^^^^^' »1 -6- ^v any document, proceedings or certificate of election or aay record of election has been placed on record of fhis case to estabUsh fhat uncle- in-law of the petitioner was ever elected or uommated as Panch of Gram Paiichayat-Naka. It is fhus, clear fhat whUe decidiag the petitioner's appeal, altogefher a new ground was taken-up for consideration wifh regard to petitioner's entiUeinent for appotntoient, of which fhe petitioner had no notice. This Court therefore finds fhat the Additional Collector/respondent No.2 while holdiag enquiry and coraiag to fhe conclusion that fhe petitioner was not quali&ed and Sint. Gista Bai/respondent No.5 was more quaUfied, did not aiford any opportunity of hearing to fhe petitioaer. Further, fhe Chief Executive Officer/respondent No.3 gave only 4 days time to fhe petitioner, which was wholly iaadequate, Petitioner's avennent fhat fhe notice was served upon her on 26.5.1999 is supported by postal receipt aad fhere is no material placed by respondents to prove service of notice on fhe petitioner on or before 24.5.1999. Even no order has been passed by fhe Chief Executive Officer/respondent No.3 considering fhe reply dated 29.5.1999 filed by fhe petitioner, The ground on which fhe Comniissioner/respondent No.l held ttie petitioner disquall&ed was not the ground taken for termiaatioa of her senfices under fhe order of fhe Additional Collector. Therefore, fhe termiaation of petitioner's appoiatinent as Auganbadi Worker suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. Wifhout inakmg aay proper enquiry aiid wifliout affordiag an opportunity of hearmg, petitioner was termiaated, Though fhe order of termiaation was not based on any niisconduct while working as Angaabadi Worker, yet, m all faimess, petitioner was entiUed to a proper opportunity of y.c^. ':'^:.llfe. •^,.s:.. -7- r- hearing before tenniaating her sendces on the ground ftiat her selection vvas not proper. 8, ConsequenUy, order dated 15th Noveinber, 1999 (ABnexiire P-1) passed by the Coinmissiouer/respondent No.l, as also tennuiatiou of fhe petitioner is declared illegal aad the petitioner is entiUed to remstatement ia sewice. It would, however, be open to tlie respondents to raake due aad proper enqiiiry after affbrdiag proper opportauity of hearmg to fhe petitioner. te^—.^ |gS?i^^ g Petitk»n is accoidingfy aUowed to fhe extent and in the inaiuier uidicated above. There shaUl be no order as to costs. 10. Before partmg wifh tiie case, it is noted fhat on 10.5.2006, fhis Court directed tliis petition to be listed aloug with W.P. No.2668/2003. The record offhe aforesaid case (W.P. No.2668/03), which has been placed before this Court shows tiiat fhe aforesaid petition has been finaUy decided vide order dated 25th March, 2010. Praveen Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge