Sunita Madwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88898
1 WA-3113-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
rd
ON THE 3 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3113 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010631782026
SUNITA MADWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Rusia - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Ramkumar Choubey
This writ appeal, under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the
order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)
No.5359/2004, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been
dismissed.
2. The appellant was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker for Gram
Heerapur by order dated 28.02.2002. By order dated 08.06.2004, her services
were terminated on the allegation of negligence in the discharge of her
duties. The appellant challenged the termination, contending that no show-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
14:28:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88898
2 WA-3113-2026
cause notice or opportunity of hearing had been afforded to her. She also

relied upon a representation submitted to the Collector on 23.06.2004 and a
joint representation made by the Panchs and villagers in support of her
functioning at the Anganwadi Centre.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order
suffers from material errors. It is contended that the learned Single Judge
erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of an
alternative remedy before the Collector, without considering that the
appellant had already submitted a representation dated 23.06.2004. It is
further submitted that the scheme or guidelines relied upon for the appellate
remedy were introduced in 2007, whereas the termination order was passed
in 2004, and the subsequent remedy could not have been applied
retrospectively without an appropriate legal basis.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the finding of
delay and laches is contrary to the record, as the writ petition itself was
instituted in 2004 and remained pending before the High Court until its
decision in 2026. The appellant cannot be held responsible for the time
consumed in the adjudication of the proceedings. It is also urged that the
termination was founded upon allegations of negligence carrying adverse
civil consequences, but was ordered without notice or opportunity of hearing.
Such alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, it is contended,
required consideration on merits notwithstanding the objection regarding an
alternative remedy.
5 . Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
14:28:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88898
3 WA-3113-2026
respondents/State supports the impugned order and submits that the learned

Single Judge rightly declined to entertain the writ petition in view of the
remedy available under the applicable scheme and the lapse of considerable
time. It is contended that the order does not warrant interference in appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The impugned order itself records that the appellant submitted a
representation to the Collector on 23.06.2004, within fifteen days of the
termination order dated 08.06.2004. The outcome of that representation was
not available on the record. In these circumstances, the question whether the
representation constituted invocation of the remedy available to the
appellant, and the legal consequence of its non-disposal, required due
consideration before dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-
exhaustion of the alternative remedy.
8. The question whether the scheme or guidelines relied upon by the
learned Single Judge were in force on the date of termination, or could
otherwise govern the appellant’s case, also required examination. The
termination order was passed on 08.06.2004, whereas the appellant asserts
that the relevant guidelines providing the appellate mechanism were issued
in 2007. The applicability and legal effect of the said scheme could not be
presumed without examining its relevant provisions and the date from which
it operated.
9. The finding regarding delay and laches also requires reconsideration.
The writ petition bears the number W.P.(S) No.5359/2004 and was instituted
in the year 2004 itself. The period during which the petition remained
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
14:28:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88898
4 WA-3113-2026
pending before the Court could not, by itself, be treated as a period of

inaction attributable to the appellant. The delay, if any, preceding institution
of the writ petition, and its legal effect, therefore, required consideration with
reference to the actual chronology.
10. Equally, the appellant’s specific contention that her services were
terminated on allegations of negligence without issuance of a show-cause
notice or affording an opportunity of hearing goes to the manner in which
the adverse order was passed. The learned Single Judge was required to
consider this plea in the context of the record and the applicable law,
including its bearing upon the objection of an alternative remedy. The
applicability of the principles of natural justice and the merits of the
challenge to the termination order have not been examined in the impugned
order.
11. In view of the aforesaid aspects, this Court is of the considered view
that the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed without due
consideration of the aforesaid issues. At the same time, since the merits of
the termination order have not been examined, it would not be appropriate
for this Court to record any final finding on the validity of the termination at
this stage.
12. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.06.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.5359/2004 is set aside.
The writ petition is restored to its original number and remanded to the
learned Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits, in accordance with
law, after considering the rival submissions and the relevant material on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
14:28:38

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88898
5 WA-3113-2026
record, including the questions of alternative remedy, the representation

made to the Collector, delay and laches, and the plea concerning violation of
the principles of natural justice.
13. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
ultimate merits of the challenge to the termination order. All questions are
left open for consideration by the learned Single Judge.
14. Writ appeal stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK)
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
JUDGE
Sudesh

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR
SHUKLA
Signing time: 06-11-2026
14:28:38