An Anganwadi worker cannot be terminated without the inquiry mandated by the government circular.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Karyakarta in 2002.

After receiving complaints and issuing repeated notices concerning her absence from August 2020, the respondents terminated her service on 3 March 2021.

The petitioner explained that she had been ill, had gone to her maternal home for treatment, and had informed departmental personnel; she also stated that she had resumed work.

Her first and second appeals were dismissed.

She challenged the termination and appellate orders, principally on the ground that no enquiry had been conducted as required by the State Government’s Circular dated 10 July 2007.

1. Whether the petitioner’s termination for unauthorised absence was valid when the respondents did not conduct the enquiry prescribed by the Circular dated 10 July 2007.

2. Whether the respondents’ issuance of repeated show-cause notices and the petitioner’s opportunity to submit a reply could substitute for the prescribed enquiry.

Under the State Government’s Circular dated 10 July 2007, an Anganwadi Karyakarta may be removed for failure to perform duties or negligence only after being given an opportunity of hearing and being found guilty in an enquiry.

The High Court, relying on Kavita v. State of M.P. & Ors., W.P. No. 7358/2014(S), and Smt. Ramkali Bai v. Mahila and Bal Vikas Department, held that issuing notices or receiving reports does not replace the enquiry required by the Circular, even where the worker has not responded to a notice.

It also relied on Smt. Lalita Devi v. State of M.P. & Ors., W.P. No. 13361/2012, and Nisha Devi v. State of Himachal & Ors., 2014 AIR SCW 1611, for the principle that termination of an Anganwadi Worker without an enquiry affording an adequate opportunity consistent with natural justice is unsustainable.

The petitioner’s explanation raised factual matters requiring examination, including her illness and her assertion that she had informed departmental personnel of her absence. The respondents did not enquire into those matters before terminating her service.

Although the State relied on the repeated notices and the absence of supporting material for the petitioner’s explanation, the Court held that notices and an opportunity to reply did not satisfy the Circular’s separate requirement of an enquiry.

It distinguished Smt. Priyanka Pal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., W.A. No. 932/2024, because the explanation and medical documents in that case did not correspond, whereas Shardabai’s explanation concerned her own illness and the documents related to her.

Given her 18 years of service and the absence of any enquiry into her explanation, the termination and appellate orders could not stand.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith, while permitting them to hold an enquiry under the Circular dated 10 July 2007 and pass appropriate orders thereafter.