Smt. Akti Ghritlahre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Order on Board 08/10/2026

¶1By the present petition, the petitioner has for following reliefs:- "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order of termination dated

21.09.2026 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent No.5 i.e. Project Officer, Irrigated Child Development Project, Pallari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) and further be pleased to direct the respondents authority to reinstate the petitioner in service and allow her to work as Anganbadi Worker at Anganbadi Center, Amera-02, Janpad Panchayat Pallari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) with all consequential benefits.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to set aside the impugned advertisement dated 24.09.2026 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the respondent No.5 i.e. Project Officer, Irrigated Child Development Project, Pallari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) to the extent of filing up the post of Anganbadi Worker at Anganbadi Center, Amera-02, Janpad Panchayat Pallari, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in the interest of justice.

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner."

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Anganbadi Worker and posted at Anganbadi Center, Amera-2, Janpad Panchayat Pallari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara. Learned counsel submits that the termination order dated 21.09.2026 against the petitioner was passed by the Collector, because of some irregularities found at Anganbadi Center. The impugned termination was passed without affording the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Though the reply was submitted by the petitioner in response to show cause notice, but the same was summarily rejected without considering the reply. In the matter, a detailed inquiry is required to be conducted under the relevant applicable rules and the charges leveled against the petitioner are required to prove in accordance with law. There is no inquiry conducted against the petitioner, yet the termination order has been passed against her. He would further submit that, even if some deficiencies is considered, the termination of the petitioner is disproportionate with that discrepancy and such the major punishment cannot be imposed without proper departmental inquiry. The action of the respondent authorities are violative of the guidelines of 2008. He would also submit that immediately after the order of termination, two days later, fresh advertisement for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta/ Sahayika for Amera-2, Janpad Panchayat, Pallari has been issued by the authorities, therefore, the impugned termination order is liable to be quashed.

¶3Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions and has submitted that the petitioner has afforded proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned termination order. When the authorities have found the reply unsatisfactory, the order of termination has been passed. Therefore, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶4I have heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.

¶5The State Government has issued a guideline on 02.04.2008 with respect to the appointments of Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika/Mini Anganbadi Karyakarta. Clause 13 of the said guideline provides for termination of the Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika, which is necessary to be reproduced here:- "13. कार्यकर्ताओं/

सहायिकाओंकोपदसेहटानेकीप्रकि या:-

13.1

कि सीआंगनबाड़ीकार्यकर्ता/

सहायिकाकेसंदर्भमें

शिकाययत प्राप्त होने पर बाल विकास परियोजना

अधिकारी द्वारा संबंधितपर्यवेक्षकसेजांचकरवाकर

प्रतिवेदनप्राप्तकि याजायेगावप्राप्तप्रतिवेदनमेंगुण

दोषोंकापरीक्षणकरशिकाययतसहीपायेजानेपरययदि

कि सी प्रकारका गबनअथवागंभीरअनिययमितता का

प्रकरणबनताहैतोसंबंधितकार्यकर्ता/

सहायिकाकोउस

परपरिलक्षितहुएआरोपोंसेस्पष्टअवगतकरातेहुए

अपनापक्षरखनेकाअवसरप्रदानकि येजानेहेतुपन्द्रह

दिवसकासमयय प्रदानकि याजावेगाएवंउत्तरप्राप्तहोने

परपुनःगुणदोषोंकापरीक्षणकरन्यायोचितनिर्णयय लेते

हुएययदि पदसेपृथककि याजानाआवश्ययकहोतोपदसे

पृथककि येजानेसंबधीप्रस्तावजाँचप्रतिवेदनसहित

जनपदपंचाययत/

नगरीयय निकायय कीउससमिति केसमक्ष

प्रस्तुतकि याजावेगाजोचययनकेलियेसक्षमहैं।उक्त

समिति केअनुमोदनहोनेकेउपरांतमुख्यय कार्यपालन अधिकारी,

जनपदपंचाययत/

आयुक्तनगरनिगम/मुख्यय

नगरपालिका अधिकारी द्वारा पदसेपृथककरनेके

आदेशप्रसारितकि येजायेंगे।

13.2

ययदि गबनअथवागंभीरअनिययमितताकाप्रकरण

परिलक्षितनहींहुआहैएवंमात्रसामान्यय लापरवाहियों

परिलक्षितहुईहैंतो संबंधितबालविकासपरियोजना

अधिकारी द्वारा प्रथम दो बार संबंधित कार्यकर्ता/

सहायिकाकोसचेतकरतेहुएचेतावनीजारी

कीजावेगीएवंतृतीयय बारभीसुधारनआनेपरउसपर

स्पष्टआरोपआरोपितकरतेहुएसुनवाईका अंतिम

अवसरप्रदानकि या जावेगा एवंप्राप्तस्पष्टीकरणपर

न्यायोचितरूपसेविचारकरतेहुएययदि पदसेपृथक

कि याजानाआवश्ययकहोतोतद्‌नुसारउपरोक्तकण्डि का

13.1

अनुसारजनपदपंचाययत/

नगरीयय निकायय को

प्रस्तावप्रस्तुतकरसेवासमाप्तकरनेकीकार्यवाहीकी

जावेगी।ययदि गंभीरकदाचार/

अनिययमितताकीशिकाययत

होनेपरभी जनपदपंचाययत/

नगरीयय निकायय की चययन

समिति कार्यकर्ता/

सहायिकाकोपदसेपृथककरनेसंबंधी

प्रस्तावप्रस्तुतकरनेकेतीनसप्ताहकीसमयावधि के

भीतरपारितनहीं करती हैएवंपरियोजना अधिकारी

उक्तकार्यकर्ता/

सहायिकाको जनहितमेंपदसेपृथक

कि या जाना आवश्ययक मानते हैं तो बाल विकास

परियोजनाअधिकारीप्रकरणमूल्यांकनसमिति केसमक्ष

रखेंगे।बालविकासपरियोजना अधिकारी केव्दारा

मूल्यांकनसमिति केप्रस्तावसेजि लाकार्यकमअधिकारी

केअनुमोदनउपरांतपदसेपृथककि याजासकेगा।

13.3

वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों अर्थात जि ला कार्यक्रम

अधिकारीअथवाउनसेउच्चअधिकारियोकेनिरीक्षणके

दौरानस्थि ति असंतोषजनकपायेजानेपरययदि उनके

विवेकअनुसारकार्यकर्ताकोपदसेपृथककि याजाना

आवश्ययक पाया जाता है तो इस हेतु संबंधित

निरीक्षणकर्ता अधिकारी अपने निरीक्षण तथा

अनिययमितताओंकाविस्तृतसुस्पष्टप्रतिवेदनतैयारकर

पदसेपृथककरनेहेतुउल्लेखकरतेहुएमुख्यय कार्यपालन

अधिकारीजनपदपंचाययतऔरययदि नगरीयय क्षेत्रहैतो

आयुक्तनगरनिगम/

मुख्यय नगरपालिकाअधिकारीको

प्रेषितकरदेंगेएवंजनपदपंचाययतएवंनगरीयय निकायय

व्दारा कण्डि का13.1

एवं13.2

अनुसारकार्यवाही की

जावेगी।

13.4

पदसेपृथक्करणकेआदेशकेविरूद्धअपील

कडिका11

केप्रावधानोंकेअनुसारकीजासकेगी।

13.5

ययदि कोईआंगनवाडीकार्यकर्ता/

सहायिका बिना

कि सीसूचनाकेलगातारएकमाहसेअधिकअवधि तक

अनुपस्थि तरहतीहैतोपरियोजनाअधिकारीअनुपस्थि ति

केकारणपरपर्यवेक्षकसेएकजाँचप्रतिवेदनप्राप्तकर

कंडिका13.1, 13.2

केअनुरूपसेवासमाप्तकरनेकी

कार्यवाहीकरेंगे।

13.6

आंगनवाड़ी कार्यकर्ता /

सहायिका की सेवाकी

अधिकतमउम्र62

वर्षपूर्णहोनेपरपरियोजनाअधिकारी

उन्हेंएकमाहपूर्वलिखि तसूचनादेकरसेवासमाप्तकरने

संबधीआदेशप्रसारितकरेंगे।इसहेतुकंडिका

13.1.

13.2

केअनुरूपजनपदपंचाययत/

नगरीयय निकायय की

चययनसमिति सेअनुमोदनलेनेकी आवश्ययकता नहीं होगी।

स्पष्टीकरणः-

उपरोक्तनुसारपदसेपृथककरनेकी

प्रक्रियामेंजि सअभ्ययर्थीकीनियुक्ति जि सप्रकि यासेहुई

होगीउसीप्रकि यासेउसीप्रकि याकेतहतविहितसमिति

वअनुमोदनकेअनुसारउसेपदसेपृथककि याजावेगा

अर्थातययदि जनपदपंचाययत/

नगरीयय निकायय सेचययनहुआ

हैतोउसीनिकायय केमाध्ययमसेकंडिका13.1 अनुसार

कार्यवाहीकरतेहुएपदसेपृथककि याजावेगाएवंजि स

अभ्ययर्थीकाचययनमूल्यांकनसमिति तथाजि लाकार्यकम

अधिकारीकेअनुमोदनसेहुआहोगाउसेतद्‌नुसारही

मूल्यांकन समिति व जि ला कार्यक्रम अधिकारी के

अनुमोदनसेपदसेपृथककि याजावेगा।"

¶6From perusal of the procedure prescribed for removal of the Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika, it transpires that on a complaint

received

against

the

Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika, it was to be inquired from the concerned Observer, who shall submit his report and if prima facie material is found against the Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika, show cause notice is required to be issued giving 15 days time to file reply and after receiving their reply, the matter be again examined, and if it is found that, the concerned Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika is to be removed from service, then a proposal along with the inquiry report is to be produced before the committee of concerned Janpad Panchayat/Local Bodies, who is competent to appointment, and after their approval the matter is to be referred to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat/ Commissioner, Municipal Corporation/Chief Municipal Officer for passing of the order separately. An explanation was also given in clause 13 that, the process of removal of the employee, would be the same on which he/she is selected, and if his/her selection was through the scrutiny committee and approval of programme officer, she would be removed only after approval of the scrutiny committee and programme officer. It also transpires from clause 13.4 that, the employee can prefer an appeal against the order of termination as provided under clause 11 of the said guideline.

¶7From perusal of the impugned order as well as the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that there are certain lapses in issuing notices, conducting inquiry and representing the case of the petitioner before the authorities by both sides and the inquired procedure by the authorities concerned appears to be in hasty manner.

¶8Be that as it may, the remedy of appeal under clause 13.4 of the guideline dated 02.04.2008 is provided against the termination from the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika. In view of the issue involved in the case, it would deem appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach before the authority concerned by filing her appeal as provided under clause 11 and 13.4 of the guideline dated 02.04.2008 and then the appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal of the petitioner, if so filed, on its own merits without there being influenced of any observation made in this order.

¶9The petitioner is directed to file the appeal as provided under clause 11 and 13.4 of the guideline dated 02.04.2008 within 02 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and then, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of 04 months from the date of filing the appeal. Till then, the impugned order dated 21.09.2026 (Annexure P/1) shall be kept in abeyance and the same shall be subject to ultimate outcome of the appeal, and the petitioner shall be permitted to work there at Anganbadi Center, Amera-2, Janpad Panchayat Pallari.

¶10In view of the aforesaid, the subsequent advertisement dated

24.09.2026 for appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarta/Sahayika at at Anganbadi Center, Amera-2, Janpad Panchayat Pallari shall also be kept in abeyance, which shall also be subject to final outcome of the appeal.

¶11With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep

CGHC010395162026 2026:CGHC:43613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7374 of 2026 1 - Smt. Akti Ghritlahre W/o Late Bodhan Ghritlahre Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Amera, Tehsil Pallari, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Women And Child Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Project Officer Irrigated Child Development Project, Pallari, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pallari, Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.10.12 +0530 For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru