Orissa High Court
Debaki Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 16 May, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 12417 of 2022
(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India)
---------------
Debaki Pradhan ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. N.K. Sahu, M.K. Dash,
D. Sahoo, H.K. Dash, R. Hota
and S.K. Rath, Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.R. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
[OP Nos.1 to 7]
M/s. R. Achary, S. Das
and S. Srichandan, Advocates
[OP No.8]
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
16th May, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government in the Department of Women and Child Development is impugned in the present writ application. By means of the said order, it was held that the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Page 1 of 12 Kanamareisahi Anganwadi Centre are no more required and she is not entitled to get remuneration for the period from 01.07.2016 till date, as per the rule of "no work no pay".
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Worker in the above mentioned Centre on 29.09.2011. There being complaints against her by persons from the locality on 11.10.2012 and 26.10.2012, the matter was enquired into at the local level by the Sub-Collector and the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO). Subsequently, on the direction of the Collector, further inquiry was conducted by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat on 02.01.2014. It was reported that the petitioner was outcast from the village because of political pressure, and that some persons were not sending their children to the Anganwadi Centre. On the basis of such report, the Sub- Collector directed disengagement of the petitioner by order dated 06.01.2014.
2.1. The petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) No. 462 of 2014, which was disposed of on 30.01.2014 directing Page 2 of 12 the petitioner to file appeal. The petitioner filed AW Appeal No.1 of 2014 before the Collector, Nayagarh. Said appeal was disposed of on 17.05.2014 by upholding the decision of the Sub-Collector. The petitioner challenged such order before this Court in WP(C) No. 11567 of 2014. This Court, by an interim order passed on 27.06.2014, directed the authority to allow the petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Worker. However, the CDPO did not supply nutrition supplement to the Centre and directed others not to cooperate the petitioner being instigated by the local political persons. The petitioner filed a contempt petition on 02.11.2016 before this Court alleging violation of the order of this Court and regarding non-payment of remuneration and necessary fund for running the Centre. The authorities, as a counterblast, drew up disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on 11.11.2016, which was challenged by her before this Court in another writ application being WP(C) No. 9734 of 2017. Both the writ applications and the contempt application were heard together and disposed of by order dated 29.08.2017. Said order was further confirmed in appeal preferred before the Division Bench in WA No. 345 of 2017. In Page 3 of 12 the writ applications, this Court held that the principle of natural justice not having followed by the Collector, the order passed by him is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, said order was quashed and the following direction was issued:-
"Since, learned counsel for the parties have submitted before this Court that there is local political rivalry and this Court prima facie observes that the petitioner has not been allowed to function, this Court is also aware that if there is any misconduct on the part of any of the functionary of the State Government, he/she has no right to continue in service but a proper enquiry is to be made by following the principle of natural justice and other aspect of the matter.
In view of such submission, it would be in the ends of justice to direct the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department to look into the matter in detail.
Accordingly, the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department is directed to Issue a show cause to the petitioner after going through the record within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The petitioner shall file due response by taking all the plea therein within two weeks from the date of receipt of the show cause.
The Secretary, Women and Child Development Department is directed to take decision after providing opportunity of being heard and pass well speaking order within two weeks thereafter."
2.2. The petitioner further alleges that despite continuing to work, she was not paid her remuneration and did not receive Page 4 of 12 any cooperation from the concerned authorities. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary ignored the specific direction of this Court by delegating the inquiry to be conducted by the Collector. Since the Collector had passed the original order in appeal, which was quashed, the action of the Commissioner is entirely illegal. Further, what inquiry was conducted by the Collector was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, as it was conducted entirely behind her back.
2.3. The stand of the State authorities is that serious complaints of misconduct, misbehavior, defalcation, dereliction in duty and irregular supply of THR and Hot Cooked Meal to children were regularly received against the petitioner by the authorities, such as, CDPO, BDO, Sub-Collector, local MLA and the Hon'ble Minister. The officials attempted to conduct a fair inquiry into the allegations, but the petitioner did not produce relevant records. As such, she was disengaged by order of the Collector. The Collector, on receipt of allegations against the petitioner, had visited the Centre with other officers and during such visit, the local people complained about the misbehavior of the petitioner. The petitioner also did not produce the Page 5 of 12 records demanded by the Collector, for which a departmental proceeding was initiated against her.
2.4. The matter being referred to the Secretary of the Department, fresh inquiry was initiated by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. She submitted her reply to the show cause. She was also granted opportunity of personal hearing, which she availed through virtual mode on 30.10.2021. In course of such hearing, she stated that she is trying to mend her relation with the villagers, but was not successful. Looking at the continuing stalemate and inconvenience faced by the beneficiaries, the Secretary passed the impugned order. 2.5. The private opposite party no.8, who was engaged after disengagement of the petitioner and whose engagement was made subject to the result of the writ application, has also filed a counter stating therein that she has been working continuously, since her engagement, by drawing salary and has also attended job training at Bhubaneswar.
3. Heard Shri N.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.R. Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Page 6 of 12 Shri R. Achary, learned counsel for the private opposite party no.8.
4. Shri Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order by stating that this Court in the earlier writ application had specifically directed the Secretary to conduct inquiry, but the Secretary directed the Collector to enquire into the matter. This amounts to overreaching the order passed by this Court. Moreover, the Collector's earlier order passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner had been set aside. The Collector submitted report within five days without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the finding of the Secretary is clearly based on presumption and not in evidence proving the allegations against her. Since the petitioner was working on the strength of interim order passed by this Court, her claim for remuneration could not have been rejected on the ground of "no work no pay". No further notice was given proposing to terminate her engagement.
Page 7 of 12
5. Shri S.R. Pattnaik, learned AGA would argue that from the materials on record it is well evident that the petitioner was guilty of several misconducts, misbehavior and also malfeasance. Serious allegations were leveled against her by the villagers repeatedly. The matter was enquired into at the field level by different authorities, but she never cooperated. As regards the contentions raised against the impugned order, Shri Pattnaik would argue that the Secretary merely directed the Collector to enquire and place the facts, but the final decision was taken by him, as directed by this Court.
6. Shri Achary, learned counsel for the private opposite party no.8 would argue that his client was selected by following due selection process and has been discharging duties as Anganwadi Worker to the satisfaction of all concerned.
7. Though much has been pleaded and argued, the sole point that falls for consideration of this Court is the legality of the impugned order. As already stated, this Court, finding that the order passed by the Collector as appellate authority was not sustainable having been passed without complying the Page 8 of 12 principles of natural justice, as also taking note of the submissions made by the parties that there is local political rivalry for which the petitioner was not allowed to function, directed the Secretary to look into the matter in detail. Obviously, the purport of the order was to have the matter enquired into at the highest level to arrive at a fair and proper conclusion. The Secretary appears to have lost sight of the above purport and instead delegated the job to the Collector, without considering that the Collector's order passed earlier had been quashed by this Court. So, asking the Collector again to conduct an inquiry almost amounts to a situation of a person becoming the judge of his own cause, as embodied in the maxim "nemo judex in causa sua". It is trite law that such course of action can never be countenanced in law. After noting the facts, the Secretary mentioned the following in the impugned order:-
"Whereas, from a study of the latest inquiry report of the Collector. Nayagarh, the misconduct of Smt. Debaki Pradhan, her arrogant, defiant attitude towards the Collector of the District, BDO and Tahsildar of the locality, DSWO, ADSWO, CDPO and Supervisors of the Project and above all her abrasive Page 9 of 12 dealings with the beneficiary villagers stand revealed and vindicated beyond reasonable doubt. Not to carry out instructions of superior project officials and not to produce records for verifications are unpardonable instances of her insubordination. Reasons behind the boycott of the AWW by the beneficiary villagers is therefore presumable in the context of her rude and abrasive behavior towards Collector and other Officers."
Evidently, the Secretary has been swayed away by the so called latest inquiry report of the Collector and arrived at such a finding. There is no independent or subjective analysis made in support of the conclusion reached by the Secretary. It is needless to mention that this can hardly be treated as compliance of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application in its letter and spirit.
8. It is seen that though the petitioner was called upon to show cause, and she also submitted her explanation, no reason has been cited by the Secretary as to why her explanation was not considered or considered to be not satisfactory. In fact, nothing has been mentioned about it.
9. From what has been narrated before, this Court is left with no doubt that true purport and intent of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application was not Page 10 of 12 adhered to by the Secretary. This makes the impugned order unsustainable in law. However, as was held by this Court in the earlier writ application, there being serious allegations against the petitioner, it is necessary that the same are enquired in a proper and fair manner by adhering to the principles of natural justice in full measure. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that while the impugned order cannot be sustainable and deserves to be quashed, the matter cannot be left at that. The matter needs to be remitted to the Secretary with clear direction that he shall conduct the inquiry himself and be subjectively satisfied as regards the veracity of the allegations against the petitioner. In doing so, the Secretary shall examine all relevant papers, records, documents and also examine such persons as he may deem fit and proper. It is made clear that the earlier inquiry reports and orders passed by different authorities, including the Collector, shall not influence the decision of the Secretary.
10. The writ application is disposed of with these observations and further direction to the Secretary to conduct and conclude the inquiry within three months from the date of Page 11 of 12 communication of this order. Since opposite party no.8 is continuing as Anganwadi Worker, she shall be allowed to continue as such. Her engagement shall, however, depend on the final decision taken by the Secretary in the inquiry.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 16th of May, 2025/ G.D.Samal, JR-cum-PS. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Page 12 of 12 Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2025 12:47:28