Smt. Belakali Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67341
1 WP-1480-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1480 of 2017
SMT. BELAKALI MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravendra Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naveen Ahuja - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking following reliefs :
1. To issue a Writ or direction in the appropriate nature to set aside the
impugned order dated 07-04-2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent no.
5, 04-01-2017 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Collector, Rewa and order dated
16-01-2017 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Commissioner, Rewa, in the interest
of justice.
2. To issue direction or writ in the appropriate nature directing the respondents
to reinstate the petitioner in service as Angawadi Worker with all consequential
benefits including arrears of salary and seniority.
3. To grant any relief’s in favour of the petitioner fit and proper to the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
working as Anganwadi Karyakarta and was removed from service vide
impugned order dated 07.04.2016 Annexure P/5.
3. It is submitted that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature and has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:40:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67341
2 WP-1480-2017
been passed on the basis of a complaint made by strangers alleging

misutilisation of packets of food grains. It is submitted that the petitioner was
served with a show-cause notice dated 06.04.2016 Annexure P/2, of which
the reply was filed on the same day, vide Annexure P/3, denying all the
allegations but without conducting an enquiry, the impugned order dated
07.04.2016 Annexure P/5 was passed on the same day, when the reply was
filed.
4. It is submitted that the impugned order casts a stigma that 59
packets were found from one shop which was given by the present petitioner
for taking some grocery material in exchange of Take Home Ration which
was to be provided to the children under the scheme. It is further submitted
that no enquiry was conducted to establish the said allegation or to ascertain
the involvement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that an FIR was also
registered in that regard and in the criminal trial, the petitioner has been
acquitted as the prosecution could not prove the possession of those packets
from the third person namely Savitri Gupta.
5. To bolster his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on
the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul
Tripathi vs. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616 to
state that if the order is stigmatic, then the employee cannot be terminated
without conducting a proper enquiry and following principle of natural
justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
Punchnama was prepared and the statement of the person from whose
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:40:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67341
3 WP-1480-2017
possession those packets were seized was recorded, then the show cause

notice has been issued. It is submitted that the physical possession of the
packets was found with the third person which belonged to the Anganwadi
Centre, therefore, after giving show cause, the impugned order, terminating
the services of the petitioner, has been passed, therefore, no interference is
called for.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From the perusal of the impugned order and show cause notice, it is
found that it was issued forming a basis that the packets belonging to
Anganwadi Centre were found in possession of third person. The statement
of third person were recorded and it was found that they were given by the
present petitioner.
9. In respect of the same allegations, an FIR was registered, however,
in the criminal trial, the competent Court has acquitted the petitioner and the
third person vide judgment dated 07.06.2017 Annexure P/13.
10. From perusal of the judgment dated 07.06.2017 Annexure P/13
passed in ST No.349/2016, it is seen that the competent Court on finding that
the prosecution could not prove the possession of those packets and
witnesses of seizure have turned hostile, has granted benefit of doubt to the
petitioner as well as the third person from whose possession such packets
were seized, therefore, from perusal of the material produced by the parties,
this Court is of the considered opinion that to form an opinion to initiate a
disciplinary action, the authority must have cogent material in their hands.
11. When the allegations have been denied in the reply, then the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:40:54

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67341
4 WP-1480-2017
authorities ought to have conducted enquiry by giving opportunity of hearing

to the delinquent as the allegations which have been levelled were not
admitted. The allegations also could not be proved before the competent
Court of law in a criminal trial, therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, mere forming an opinion on the basis of statement of third person and
taking action of termination is not in accordance with law and is violative of
principle of natural justice.
12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 Annexure P/5
is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the authorities to conduct
an enquiry from the stage of receiving of reply, by giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and then form any opinion and thereafter, pass an
appropriate order, if the petitioner is found guilty of misconduct.
13. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
anand

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 03-09-2026
11:40:54