Termination for first-time misconduct exceeding penalties prescribed in governing guidelines is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner was appointed as an Aanganbadi Sevika on January 28, 2000, at Centre No. 2, Mallah Toli, Buxar

Following inspections on October 22, 2019, and November 8, 2019, several irregularities were alleged, including the petitioner’s absence, low child attendance (12 out of 40), poor food quality, lack of hygiene, and inadequate drinking water and lavatory facilities

Consequently, the District Programme Officer (DPO), Buxar, terminated her services via order dated November 11, 2019

The petitioner’s appeal to the District Magistrate was dismissed on November 13, 2020

She challenged these orders, contending that the penalty of termination exceeded the punishment prescribed for first-time misconduct under the relevant government guidelines

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s service was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct as per the departmental guidelines

2. Whether the respondent authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by imposing a penalty not prescribed for first-time offences under the Aanganbadi Kendra Sanchalan Evam Dand Hetu Margdarshika

The court applied the guidelines regulating the conduct and punishment of Aanganbadi employees, specifically the Aanganbadi Kendra Sanchalan Evam Dand Hetu Margdarshika issued via Letter No. 170 dated January 20, 2017

Under Clauses (k), (g), and (gh) of these guidelines, the prescribed punishment for a first-time instance of absence from duty, low student attendance (less than 50%), or failure to maintain hygiene/food standards is a "warning" (Chetavni)

Termination (Chayan Mukti) is only contemplated upon repeated misconduct or failure to improve after prior warnings

The court examined the nature of the irregularities attributed to the petitioner—absence, low attendance, and poor infrastructure/hygiene—and categorized them under the relevant clauses of the 2017 Guidelines

Upon reviewing the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the State, it was admitted that the guidelines were in force from January 20, 2017

The court found that because these were the first documented instances of misconduct by the petitioner, the authorities were legally mandated to issue a warning rather than direct termination

The court reasoned that by jumping to the harshest penalty (termination) for a first-time offence, the DPO and the District Magistrate acted beyond the scope of their delegated authority and ignored the graduated penalty structure mandated by the State’s own policy

The High Court set aside the DPO’s order dated November 11, 2019, and the District Magistrate’s appellate order dated November 13, 2020

The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, while reserving the right of the authorities to pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with the warning procedures prescribed in the guidelines