Kavita Tanwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25072
1 WP-12844-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
th
ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 12844 of 2026
KAVITA TANWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sapna Patwa - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Tanishq Patel - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated
09.01.2025 passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from
the post of Anganwadi Worker and the order passed by the appellate
authority on 30.01.2026 whereby the order of removal from service has been
affirmed.
2. The facts relevant for the purposes of this case are that the
petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganwadi Worker vide the order
dated 01.03.2003. The petitioner continued to discharge her duties upto the
year 2024 when she was served with show cause notice dated 26.12.2024
whereby she was directed to show cause against an allegation that she
demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 150/- for accepting online application
under the Pradhan Mantri Matra Vandana Scheme. The petitioner submitted
her reply to the said show cause notice on 30.12.2024 thereby denying the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 09-Sep-26
11:17:32 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25072
2 WP-12844-2026
charges. However, respondent no. 4 after holding an enquiry passed an order

on 09.01.2025 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated with
immediate effect. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred appeal before the
respondent no. 3/Collector who dismissed the appeal filed by the order dated
23.05.2023 affirming the order of termination. The petitioner filed second
appeal before the Commissioner which was also dismissed vide the order
dated 30.01.2026 confirming the termination. Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the
authorities have considered that the respondents have not followed the
procedure as provided under the scheme for appointment of Anganwadi
Workers dated 10.07.2007 which provides for taking disciplinary action
against an Anganwadi Worker. She submits that the petitioner pursuant to
show cause notice has explained that the complainant Aman Yadav who was
husband of the applicant Tanu Yadav was already having a grudge against
the petitioner in as much as he had an earlier transaction with the parents of
the petitioner and the petitioner with respect to piece of land and because of
dispute in the same, he had threaten the petitioner that he will ensure that the
petitioner is removed from her job. He submits that the petitioner was not
given opportunity to substantiate her defence by leading evidence. Thus, the
impugned order suffers from non-compliance of the procedure prescribed
vide circular dated 10.07.2007 as also from the vice of breach of principles
of natural justice. Hence, the order of termination and consequential
affirmation by appellate authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus,
the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner deserves to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 09-Sep-26
11:17:32 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25072
3 WP-12844-2026
reinstated in the service and as the petitioner has already crossed the age of

superannuation, she deserves to be granted consequential benefits pursuant
to reinstatement.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the
authorities before passing the impugned orders against the petitioner has not
only carried out an exhaustive enquiry but have also found the documents of
the applicant Tanu Yadav in the almirah of the office of Anganwadi Worker
in which the petitioner used to keep her documents. In the said almirah, the
presence of documents of applicant Tanu Yadav shows that the applicant did
not process her application through online process as she did not give the
illegal amount of Rs. 150/- as demanded by the petitioner. He also points
out that the petitioner during the process of disciplinary action tried to wish
away the established fact of demand of illegal gratification by explaining that
this amount of Rs. 150/- was taken for payment to an online operator in the
MP Online as the petitioner is not able to process application herself in the
online mode. He thus submits that in view of clear admission by the
petitioner no interference is warranted in matter. The learned counsel
submits that in a case of disciplinary action, the limited judicial review this
Court has to take is to test that whether the procedure prescribed under the
law has been followed or not and whether the principles of natural justice are
followed while passing the impugned orders. As in the present case, clear
admission of the petitioner is available in the proceedings, no indulgence is
warranted. Hence, he submits that petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 09-Sep-26
11:17:32 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25072
4 WP-12844-2026
6. A perusal of the document Annexure R/5 which is the note-sheet

of the proceedings before the disciplinary authority would show that in the
proceedings conducted on 02.01.2025 and 09.01.2025, the petitioners stated
that she has taken Rs. 150/-, however she tried to explain that as she was not
able to process the application under the Pradhan Mantri Matra Vandana
Scheme thus, she has taken this amount for payment to the person operating
MP Online. However, the fact remains that under the said scheme no charge
was to be taken from the applicants/beneficiaries. The petitioner is not able
to show any document which would have authorized the petitioner to take
money from the applicants/beneficiaries under the said scheme. It is thus
clear that the amount of gratification was taken by the petitioner in an
unauthorized and illegal manner.
7. After considering the record of the disciplinary proceedings and
the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities, this
Court is of the view that there is no breach of principles of natural justice and
the authorities have followed the procedure for infliction of penalty of
termination upon the petitioner. Not only she was given show cause notice
but an enquiry was also held, note-sheets were drawn recording the
statements of the petitioner and after granting opportunity to explain the
allegation, the order of termination was passed which has been affirmed by
two appellate authorities by passing a reasoned orders. Considering the
above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 09-Sep-26
11:17:32 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25072
5 WP-12844-2026
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
vidya

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 09-Sep-26
11:17:32 AM