Stigmatic termination of an Anganwadi worker without departmental inquiry violates natural justice and is unsustainable.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker on 23 March 2017 and was serving at Anganwadi Centre No. 9D, Kolaras, District Shivpuri.

The Project Officer terminated her services by order dated 24 March 2018. The order referred to alleged unauthorised absence, deputing her sister to perform her duties, residing at her matrimonial home in Gwalior, failure to provide services and benefits under various welfare schemes, and deficiencies in monitoring and reporting.

The petitioner contended that the termination order was stigmatic and was passed without a charge-sheet, proper hearing, or regular departmental enquiry.

Her appeal was rejected on 30 November 2018.

The State defended the action on the basis of the appointment condition permitting termination without notice.

Whether the termination order dated 24 March 2018, containing allegations of misconduct and dereliction of duty, was stigmatic in nature.

Whether the petitioner’s services could be terminated without a regular departmental enquiry and an effective opportunity of hearing merely because the appointment condition permitted termination without notice.

Whether the termination order and the appellate order were liable to be quashed, with consequential reinstatement and other relief.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice governing stigmatic termination.

A termination order founded on allegations of misconduct, dereliction of duty, or conduct adversely affecting an employee’s character or future prospects is stigmatic and cannot ordinarily be passed without framing charges, granting a meaningful opportunity of defence, and conducting a regular departmental enquiry.

Relying on Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300, the Court held that reasonable opportunity includes notice of the allegations, an opportunity to deny the charges and cross-examine witnesses, and an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed punishment.

The Court also relied on Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, 2001 (3) MPLJ 616; Jitendra v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPLJ 670; Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P., ILR (2018) MP 660; and other coordinate Bench decisions holding that stigmatic termination without enquiry is legally unsustainable.

The State Government policy dated 10 July 2007 specifically required that an Anganwadi Worker be given an opportunity of hearing and be found guilty in an enquiry before removal from service.

The Court examined the language of the termination order and found that it was not a simpliciter order of discontinuance; it expressly attributed several acts of misconduct and failure in the discharge of official duties to the petitioner.

These findings carried adverse consequences for her service record and future prospects, thereby making the order stigmatic.

Although the State relied on the appointment condition permitting termination without notice, that condition could not authorise termination founded on misconduct without compliance with natural justice.

The Court further noted that no charge-sheet had been issued and no regular departmental enquiry had been conducted, contrary both to the requirements of law and the State’s 10 July 2007 policy.

The appellate authority also failed to cure these foundational defects.

Accordingly, the termination and appellate orders could not be sustained.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and grant all consequential benefits, except back wages, applying the principle of “no work, no pay”.

The State was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, if necessary.