Stigmatic termination without a regular departmental inquiry is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in 1995.

A show-cause notice dated 20 June 2016 was allegedly not served upon her.

Subsequently, by order dated 29 September 2017, the respondents terminated her services on allegations of serious irregularities, absence from the Anganwadi centre, residence outside the relevant village, failure to provide monthly information, and neglect of duties.

The termination order referred to inspections, prepared panchnamas, and the petitioner’s alleged failure to respond to the show-cause notice, but no charge-sheet was issued and no regular departmental enquiry was conducted.

The petitioner’s appeal before the Additional Collector was dismissed on 4 June 2018, and her second appeal before the Additional Commissioner was dismissed on 26 October 2018.

She challenged all three orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner’s termination, being founded on allegations of misconduct and therefore stigmatic, could lawfully be effected without issuing a charge-sheet and conducting a regular departmental enquiry.

2. Whether the appellate orders affirming the termination were liable to be quashed for failure to comply with the requirements of natural justice and the State’s policy governing removal of Anganwadi Workers.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits, subject to the principle of “no work, no pay” and the respondents’ liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

A termination order that attributes misconduct, dereliction of duty, or serious irregularities and thereby carries stigma cannot ordinarily be passed without complying with natural justice and conducting a regular departmental enquiry.

Under the principles summarized in Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300, reasonable opportunity includes notice of the charges, an opportunity to contest the allegations and cross-examine witnesses, and an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed punishment.

The Court relied on Rahul Tripathi v. Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, 2001 (3) MPLJ 616, Jitendra v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPLJ 670, and Malkhan Singh Malviya v. State of M.P., ILR (2018) MP 660, which recognize that stigmatic termination affecting future prospects requires an enquiry.

The State Government policy dated 10 July 2007 also requires 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 an innocuous or simpliciter termination; it expressly recorded allegations of serious irregularities, negligence, absence, and failure to discharge duties, which adversely affected the petitioner’s conduct and future employment prospects.

Although the State contended that a show-cause notice had been issued and no reply was filed, the Court held that a show-cause notice alone did not satisfy the procedural safeguards applicable to a stigmatic termination.

The petitioner had not been served with a charge-sheet, afforded a full opportunity to contest the allegations, or subjected to a regular departmental enquiry.

This was also contrary to the 10 July 2007 policy, which contemplated removal only after hearing the Anganwadi Worker and recording a finding of guilt in an enquiry.

The appellate authorities therefore erred in upholding the procedurally defective termination.

Accordingly, the termination order, the Additional Collector’s appellate order dated 4 June 2018, and the Additional Commissioner’s second appellate order dated 26 October 2018 were set aside.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, excluding monetary benefits under the principle of “no work, no pay,” within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.