Smt. Geeta Devi Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
1 WP-46775-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 6 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 46775 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030314782026
SMT. GEETA DEVI AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Sing Raghuvansi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-

"(i) That, the impugned order Annexure P/1 31.08.26 passed
by the respondents authority be quashed with all
consequential benefits. R-3
(ii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be
awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
initially appointed to the post of Anganwadi Sahayika v i d e order dated
27.09.2007. It is further submitted that a show-cause notice dated 19.08.2026 was
issued to the petitioner by the Project Officer/respondent No. 3, to which the
petitioner submitted her reply. It is submitted that without considering the facts
and grounds mentioned in the reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent No. 3
has passed the impugned stigmatic and non-speaking order dated 31.08.2026,
thereby terminating the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that it is a settled position of law that the services of an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
2 WP-46775-2026
Anganwadi Sahayika cannot be terminated by passing a stigmatic order without

conducting a regular departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that the
controversy involved in the present case has already been considered and decided
by this Court vide judgment dated 24.07.2026 passed in W.P. No. 29250 of 2026
(Smt.Sapna Kalawat Vs. The State of M.P. and Others). It is also submitted that
the facts and grounds mentioned in the reply submitted by the petitioner have not
been considered by respondent No. 3 while passing the impugned order, which is
contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates
Private Limited and Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 496. It is further submitted that a stigmatic order can only be passed
after conducting a regular departmental inquiry, and in the present case, no regular
departmental inquiry has been conducted, yet the stigmatic order has been passed
by respondent No. 3.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned
order and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The impugned order dated 31.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) is a stigmatic
order, relevant of which is reproduced below for ready reference and
convenience:-
" 19.08.2026
दनांक म ीमान कले टर महोदय ारा आंगनवाड के दवरा
-2
च का आका मक िनर ण कया गया। िनर ण के दौरान आंगनवाड
,
के से अनुप थत पाई गई मु +यालय पर िनवास नह ं कया जा रहा है।
-
आंगनवाड के अ .यवथत पाई गई एवं अगनवाड के पर साफ सफाई

का अभाव था। इस संबंध म 5ामवािसय6 ारा भी िशकायत क 8 गई है क

आंगनवाड के पर आंगनवाड़ सहाियका समय अनुसार नह ं बैठती है।
-
उपरो < संबंध म पय =वे क के ारा भी समय समय पर िनयिमत आंगनवाड
,
संचालन हेतु समझाइस द गई कंतु आपके ारा अपने काय = म कोई सुधार

नह कया गया। जस संबंध म प ?रयोजना काया =यल के प @ मांक
/SCN/2026/878 , 19.08.2026
मबा Aव करेरा दनांक कारण बताओ सूचना प @

जार कया गया।
24.08.2026 ,
जसका संबंिधत ारा जवाब दनांक म Dतुत कया गया

जयाय संतोषजनक नह पाये जाने पर म FयDदेश शासन म हला एवं बाल
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
3 WP-46775-2026
, 2-
Aवकास Aवभाग मं @ालय व Gलभ भवन भोपाल के प @
50/24/2133058/820/. 23.05.2025 -02 G.1,
भोपाल दनांक के भाग के
G.1.1.1, G.1.1.3, G.1.1.6, G.1.1.7, G.1.1.8 G.1.1
अनुसार एवं अनुसार
( )
ीमान अनु Aवभागीय अिधकार राज व परगना करैरा के अनुमोदन उ Hांत
-2
ीमती गीता जाटव आंगनवाड सहाियका आंगनबाड क दबरा च को
"
त Iकाल Dभाव से पद से पृथक कया जाता है।

6. The services of petitioner have been terminated without holding any
regular departmental enquiry. Since impugned order Annexure P-1 dated
31.08.2026 is stigmatic in nature, therefore, regular departmental enquiry ought to
have been held by respondents. The judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar vs. Panchayat and Rural
Development & Ors.), also the order dated 12.09.2023 passed in WP
No.19117/2022 (Hukumchand Solanki vs. Panchayat and Rural Development &
Ors.) and the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in WP No.14663/2022 (Arvind
Malviya vs. State of MP & Ors.) are worth mentioning.
7. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Associates (supra) highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph
15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an
administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be
like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph 47 the Honb'le Supreme Court
summarized its discussion. The relevant sub-paragraphs of the said summary are
quoted as under:-
“47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law
and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-
making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different
as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
4 WP-46775-2026
one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for
sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of
Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553,
at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ 405
(CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights which requires,“adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial decisions”.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union
Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:-

"41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after
considering various judgments formulated certain principles
in para 51 of the judgment which are set out below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support
of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on
any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial
or even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually
the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All
these decisions serve one common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
5 WP-46775-2026
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to
the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is
not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non
of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in
decision making not only makes the judges and decision
makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the
broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights
and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
(1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the
Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of
Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all
common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due
Process".
42. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons.
However, absence of reasons in the original order cannot be
compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order.
43. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K.
Ratna and others,(1986) 4 SCC 537, it has been held:

"......after the blow suffered by the initial
decision, it is difficult to contemplate complete
restitution through an appellate decision. Such a
case is unlike an action for money or recovery of
property, where the execution of the trial decree
may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful
appeal may result in refund of the money or
restitution of the property, with appropriate
compensation by way of interest or mesne profits
for the period of deprivation. And, therefore, it
seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure that
there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the
original proceeding, and to avoid treating an
appeal as an overall substitute for the original
proceeding."

44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the show
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
6 WP-46775-2026
cause notice as also the order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the
third respondent. In view of that, the appellate order has no
legs to stand and accordingly is quashed."

9. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajeev
Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal & Others reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 616 and
Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2008(4) MPLJ 670 has rightly held
that the order of termination is stigmatic in nature as the same entails serious
consequences on future prospects of employee and therefore, the same ought to
have been passed after holding an inquiry. This Court is further supported in its
view by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Malkhan Singh Malviya Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR(2018) MP 660. The
Apex Court while deciding the case of Khem Chand vs. The Union of India and
Ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC 300, had an occasion to summarize the concept of
reasonable opportunity, relevant para of which reads as under:-
"(19) To summarize: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the
provision under consideration includes-
(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which
he can deny only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him
are and the allegations on which such charges are based;
(b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses
produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses
in support of his defence;
(c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed
punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the
competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his
mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the
government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three
punishments and communicates the same to the government servant."
10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that impugned order is stigmatic in nature,
therefore, without conducting regular departmental enquiry impugned order cannot
be issued. The impugned termination order has been issued without giving any
proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without conducting departmental
enquiry. From the language of impugned order, it is clear that it is a stigmatic
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
7 WP-46775-2026
termination order.

11. It is settled position that if the order of termination is stigmatic in nature,
the same entails serious consequences on future prospects of petitioner and
therefore the same ought to have been passed after holding an enquiry. In Arvind
Malviya (supra), it is held as under:-
"3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the fact that the present petition is covered by the order
dated 25/4/2022 passed in WP No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar
(supra)), the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby
set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service with 50% backwages within a period of 2 months from the date
of communication of the order. However, liberty is granted to the
respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh in accordance with
law, if so advised. The said order passed in W.P. No.23267/2019 shall
apply mutatis mutandis to the present case."
12. The Division Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in the case
of Rajesh Kumar Rathore vs. High Court of M.P. and another (W.P. No.18657 of
2018) vide order dated 23/11/2021 has held as under:-
“6. The short question of law involved in the present case is as to
whether the services of an employee under the Rules relating to
Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Contingency Paid (District
and Sessions Judge Establishment) Employees Rules, 1980, can be
terminated without conducting a departmental enquiry when an order of
termination casts stigma on the employee.
7. We are in full agreement with the legal position expounded in various
judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
However, in the instant case, the question that arise for consideration, as
stated above, is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench
of this Court in the case of Krishna Pal Vs. District & Sessions Judge,
Morena (supra). In the present case, it is an admitted fact that neither
charge-sheet was issued nor departmental enquiry was conducted and
order of termination attributes dereliction of duty amounting to
misconduct, and hence, the same is clearly stigmatic order. The
petitioner’s services are admittedly governed under the Rules of 1980. If
the facts and situation of the present case is examined in the context of
the facts and situation of the case of Krishna Pal (supra), it is found that
this Court had taken a view (para-5 of the said judgment) that Normally
when the services of a temporary employee or a probationer or
contingency paid employee is brought to an end by passing innocuous
order due to unsatisfactory nature of service or on account of an act for
which some action is taken, but the termination is made in a simplicitor
manner without conducting of inquiry or without casting any stigma on
the employee, the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules 1980 can be taken
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
8 WP-46775-2026
aid of. However, when the termination is founded on acts of
commission or omission, which amounts to misconduct. Such an order
casts stigma on the conduct, character and work of the employee and
hence, the principle of natural justice, opportunity of hearing and
inquiry is requirement of law.
8. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, we are not inclined to
take a different view, therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned
order dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure-P-6) and order dated 20.06.2018
(Annexure-P-9) are set aside.”

13. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 passed
in WP.5856/2020 [Devkaran Patidar Vs. State of M.P. And others (Indore Bench)]
has also decided the similar issue in the following manner:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders
are illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the respondent no.4
without considering the provisions of 15.01, 15.02 and 16 of the scheme
according to which the respondent no.4, is not empowered to terminate
the service of the petitioner, and the aforesaid impugned order
Annexure-P/1 has been wrongly uphold. He further submits that the
respondents have acted in high handed manner and without following
the instructions/guidelines issued by the Higher Authorities, issued the
impugned termination order. Thus, the action of the respondents is
unjust and arbitrary. In the present case, neither any charge-sheet has
been issued against the petitioner nor any enquiry has been conducted
before passing of the impugned stigmatic order. In such circumstances,
he prays that the impugned orders be set aside. He further relied on the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajeev
Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Bhopal 2001 (3) MPLJ 616 and Prakash
Chandra Kein vs. State of M.P. and others 2010 (3) MPLJ 179.
5. The respondents have filed the reply and has submitted that a number
of complaints has been received against the petitioner. After receiving
the complaints a Committee was constituted for conducting an enquiry
against the petitioner and on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by
the Committee a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after
giving opportunity to the petitioner to file reply, the respondent has
terminated the services. In such circumstances, the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is working on the post
of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and neither any charge-sheet has been issued
to the petitioner at any point of time nor any enquiry was conducted
with the participation of the petitioner. This Court has passed the
judgment in the case of Ramchandra vs. State of M.P. and others
decided in W.P. No.16572/2014 on 02/08/2017 and several other writ
petitions on the subject are under consideration before this Court.
8. In the light of the aforesaid as no charge-sheet was issued to the
petitioner and no enquiry has been conducted, the impugned orders
dated 12.06.2017(Annexure-P/1) and 27.08.2016(Annexure-P/2),
passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and are accordingly,
quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
9 WP-46775-2026
service; however a liberty is granted to proceed against the petitioner in
accordance with law, in case if need so arises in future.

14. The new policy of the State Government dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure P-
6 ) provides for necessary guidelines pertaining to removal of Aanganwadi
Worker from services, relevant of which is reproduced below for ready reference
and convenience:-
-2
भाग
G.
आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका के AवKL सेवा समाि M
/
अनुशासना Iमक काय =वाह संबंधी आव Nयक दशािनदOश

आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं आंगनवाड़ सहाियका का पद मानसेवी पद है।
/
आंगनवाड़ काय =कताओं एवं आंगनवाड़ सहाियकाओं के AवPL सेवा समाि M
:-
अनुशासना Iमक काय =वाह के िन Qनानुसार है
Aबदु
G.1
आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका काय =कता= को पद से पृथक करने क 8
-
Dकया
G.1.1 /
आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका के ारा के संचालन करने म
/
AवRीय Dशासक8य अिनयिमतता करने या अ य कसी अपराध म िल M पाये
/
जाने पर सव =Dथम थल िनर ण कर प ?रयोजना अिधकार ारा पंचनामा
/
?रपोट= तैयार क 8 जायेगी। पंचनामा ?रपोट= के आधार पर संबंिधत को नो टस

जार कया जायेगा। नो टस का जवाब DाM कर सम म सुनवाई का अवसर

Dदान कर गुणदोष के आधार पर सेवा समाि M का िनण =य िनयु A<कता=

अिधकार बाल Aवकास प ?रयोजना अिधकार ारा खंड तरय चयन सिमित
( )
के अ Fय अनु Aवभागीय अिधकार राज व से अनुमोदन DाM कर िलया

जायेगा। कसी भी आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका को Aबना सुनवाई का

अवसर दए सेवा से पृथक नह ं कया जाएगा। के संचालन करने म

िन Qनानुसार प ?रथितयां िनिम =त हो सकती है
G.1.1.1 / /
प ?रयोजना अिधकार जला काय =म अिधकार Aवभागीय या अ य
,
व ?रT अिधकार के औचक िनर ण म य द आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं

सहाियका ारा आंगनवाड़ के का संचालन िनयमानुसार नह ं कया जाता है

अथवा उनके ारा अपने कत =.य6 एवं दािय Iव6 के िनव =हन म लापरवाह क 8

जाती है तो बाल Aवकास प ?रयोजना अिधकार ारा आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं

सहाियका को Aविधवत जांच एवं सुनवाई का अवसर देते जांच म दोषी पाये
हुए

जाने पर िनयमानुसार अनुमोदन उपरांत पद से पृथक कया जा सकेगा।
G.1.1.2 / /
य द सहयोिगनी मातृ सिमित 5ाम वाVय तदथ = सिमित नगर य

े@ क 8 आंगनवाड़ पोषण सिमित कसी आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका

के काय = से संतु W नह ं है तो सिमित इस आशय का Dताव उपयु < कारण
/
दशा =ते 5ाम सभा नगर य े@ क 8 आंगनवाड़ पोषण सिमित क 8 बैठक म
हुए

Dतुत करेगी एवं बैठक म Dताव बहुमत से पा ?रत होने पर पय =वे क को
,
DेAषत करेगी। पय =वे क वयं संबंिधत सिमित ारा DाM Dताव के प ?रपेXय

म हटाने के उ Gलेखत कारण 6 के त Vय6 क 8 जांच करेगी। उसके प Yात अपना
15
जांच Dितवेदन दवस म पW अनुशंसा स हत बाल Aवकास प ?रयोजना

अिधकार को भेजना होगा।
G.1.1.3
बाल Aवकास प ?रयोजना अिधकार ारा पय =वे क के जांच Dितवेदन

का पर ण करने एवं उपयु < कारण पाये जाने पर सात दवस म आंगनवाड़

काय =कता= एवं सहाियका को सुनवाई का अवसर Dदान करते िनयमानुसार
हुए

सेवा समाि M का िनण =य लेकर सेवा समाि M का आदेश जार कया जावेगा।
G.1.1.4 / /
सहयोिगनी मातृ सिमित 5ाम वाVय तदथ = सिमित नगर य े@

क 8 आंगनवाड पोषण सिमित व पय =वे क के मत म िभ नता हो तो बाल

Aवकास प ?रयोजना अिधकार ारा वयं Aविधवत जांच एवं सुनवाई के अवसर
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
10 WP-46775-2026

उपरांत िशकायत सह पाये जाने पर िनण =य िलया जाकर िनयमानुसार पद से

पृथक कया जा सकेगा।
G.1.1.5
य द पय =वे क क 8 जानकार म आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका के

AवPL कोई गंभीर िशकायत सीधे आती है तो वह इन िशकायत 6 पर जांच
15
उपरांत अपना जांच Dितवेदन दवस म पW अनुशंसा स हत बाल Aवकास

प ?रयोजना अिधकार को भेजेगी। प ?रयोजना अिधकार ारा पय =वे क के

जांच Dितवेदन का पर ण करने एवं उपयु < कारण पाये जाने पर सात दवस

म आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका को पद से पृथक करने के पूव = Aविधवत

जांच एवं सुनवाई का अवसर देकर िनयमानुसार सेवा समाि M क 8 काय =वाह क 8
जावेगी।
G.1.1.6 1/
आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका के AवKL 5ामीण6
/ /
जन Dितिनिधय6 व ?रT अिधका ?रय6 के मा Fयम से पय =वे क प ?रयोजना
/ / /
अिधकार जला काय =म अिधकार संयु < संचालक अ य व ?रT काया =लय
,
को के संचालन म अिनयिमतता के स Qबध म िशकायत DाM होती है तो

िशकायत क 8 Aविधवत जांच म दोषी पाये पर सुनवाई का अवसर दये जाने के

उपरांत िनयमानुसार पद से पृथक कया जा सकता है।
G.1.1.7
आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका के लगातार एक माह तक Aबना

पूव = सूचना के अनुप थत रहने पर Aविधवत जांच एवं सुनवाई का अवसर दया

जाकर सेवा समाि M क 8 काय =वाह िनयमानुसार क 8 जावेगी।
G.1.1.8 / /
आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= सहाियका ारा के के 5ाम वाड = म िनवास
/
कर के संचािलत करना अिनवाय = शत = है। काय =कता= सहाियका ारा के
/ /
के 5ाम वाड = म िनवास नह ं करत अ य 5ाम वाड = से आना जाना करती है
हुये

तो सुनवाई का अवसर Dदान करते हुये जांच म त Vय सह पाये जाने पर

िनयमानुसार अनुमोदन DाM कर सेवा समा M क 8 जा सकेगी।
G.1.1.9 62
आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका क 8 उ Z वष = या शासन ारा

िनधा =?रत सेवािनवृ AR आयु पूण = होने पर वतः सेवा मु A< हो जाएगी। सेवामु A<

हेतु आवे दका ारा िनयु A< के समय Dतुत अंकसूची को ह आधार माना
62
जावेगा। आयु संबंधी अ य द तावेज मा य नह ं होगे। वष = क 8 आयु पूण

होने या शासन ारा िनधा =?रत सेवािनवृ AR आयु होने पर उसक 8 सेवा मु A< क 8

जQमेदार वाल Aवकास प ?रयोजना अिधकार क 8 होगी। सेवामु A< संबंिधत

माह क 8 अंितम ितिथ को होगी। जन आंगनवाड़ काय =कता= एवं सहाियका क 8
,
ज मितिथ माह क 8 Dथम ितिथ को है उ ह पूव = माह के अंितम दवस पर
"
सेवामु < कया जाएगा।

15. Admittedly, no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and
stigmatic termination order has been passed.
16. In light of aforesaid discussion, it is seen that no charge-sheet was
issued to petitioner and no regular departmental enquiry has been conducted and
the impugned stigmatic order has been passed.
17. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of
India and Others (2002) 4 SCC 16 has held as under:-
15. Without properly examining the contents of the counter-affidavit the
High Court sustained the order of the Tribunal. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that the selection of the appellant was
wrongly set aside. Insofar as the selection of Respondent 5 is concerned,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34332
11 WP-46775-2026
that is a consequential action and it cannot stand as the impugned orders
of setting aside the selection and the appointment of the appellant are
held to be bad. Therefore, the selection of Respondent 5 automatically
falls to the ground. The impugned orders of the High Court maintaining
the order of the Tribunal are set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated
into service within one month from today with continuity of service.
However, he will not be entitled to any pay for the period he remained
out of service. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.

18. Considering the aforesaid pronouncements, entire gamut of the matter
and also the fact that the present petition is covered by order dated 25.04.2022
passed in W.P.No.23267/2019 (Omprakash Gurjar Vs. Panchayat and Rural
Development & Ors.), this petition is disposed of in the following terms:-
(i) the impugned termination order dated 31.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) is
hereby set aside;

(ii) the respondents shall reinstate petitioner forthwith and give all
consequential benefits, except backwages on the principle of “no work
no pay”; and

(iii) respondent would be at liberty to proceed against petitioner in
accordance with law, in case if need so arises.
19. IA, if any pending, shall also stand disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
AVI

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 06-Nov-26
06:11:58 PM