logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 540 print Preview print print
Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
Case No : Writ Petition No. 13400 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR
Parties : Usha Achutrao Chavan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Women & Child Development Department, Mumbai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: K.P. Rathod, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.D. Ghayal, Addl. GP, R3 to R5, V.P. Narwade, R6, A.P. Patil h/f S.J. Salunke, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 13-03-2026
Head Note :-
Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, - Section 14 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-AUG 12132,
Judgment :-

Oral Judgment:-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with consent of Mr. K. P. Rathod, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Addl. G.P. for respondent-State, Mr. V. P. Narwade, learned Counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5 and Ms. Ms. A. P. Patil h/f Mr. S. J. Salunke, learned Counsel for respondent no.6.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Sevika vide order dated 17.06.2009. A complaint was raised by respondent No.6 against the petitioner, pursuant to which an inquiry was conducted by the Child Development Project Officer against the petitioner, and a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner responded the said notice.

4. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.03.2023 an opportunity was also given to the petitioner by the authorities to improve her conduct. However, upon concluding that there was no improvement in the petitioner’s conduct, a further inquiry was conducted, and resultantly vide impugned order dated 04.10.2023 the petitioner was discharged from the duties with effect from 04.10.2023 under the signature of the Child Development Project Officer.

5. The petitioner, under the impression that appeal would rest under section 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chatrapati Samabhajinagar. However, by recording that the appeal is not maintainable under the given provision, the Additional Divisional Commissioner Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar rejected the appeal on the point of maintainability vide order dated 10.06.2024.

6. As such the petitioner is before this Court against both the orders discharging her from the services and the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

7. When called out, learned Addl. GP Mr. S.D. Ghayal as also Ms. A. P. Patil h/f Mr. S. J. Salunke, learned Counsel for the original complainant respondent no.6 and Mr. V. P. Narwade, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 would invite this Court’s attention to the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2007. They submit that the entire mechanism has been framed by the State Government prescribing the procedure for taking action against the Anganvadi Sevika, Madatnis/Helper and Mini Anganvadi Sevika, in the event such employees are found to have committed misconduct.

8. Learned Counsels further submit that the said Government Resolution also provides for an appellate mechanism for aggrieved employees against whom charges of misconduct are proved.

9. Mr. S. D. Ghayal, learned Addl. GP rely on the clause no.3(4) of the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2007, which reads as follows:

                  

10. it is further submitted by the respondents’ side that an appeal against the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer would go before the Chief Executive Officer of concerned Zilla Parishad, if the project is of Rural and Tribal. They further submit that in respect of Urban Projects, such appeal goes before the Commissioner, Integrated Child Development Scheme. In view of this, it is submitted by the respondents that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the concerned Appellate Authority, which shall consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner by scrutinizing the entire record and on the merits of the case.

11. Mr. K. P. Rathod, learned Counsel for the petitioner expressed his willingness to appear before the concerned Appellate Authority in view of clause no.3(4) of the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2007. He submits that considering the post which the petitioner was holding, the appeal needs to be filed before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna. However, Mr. Rathod submits that in that event it be directed that such appeal shall not be dismissed only on the count of delay or latches.

12. In all fairness, learned AGP and Mr. V. P. Narwade, learned Counsel for Zilla Parishad and Ms. A. P. Patil h/f Mr. S. J. Salunke, learned Counsel for respondent no.6 submit that the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2007 does not speak about any limitation.

13. In view of the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2007, particularly clause no.3(4), the Mini Anganwadi Sevika/petitioner serving in the Rural Project may file an appeal before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna against the impugned order whereby her services have been brought to an end.

14. Mr. K. P. Rathod, Learned Counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the petitioner shall file such appeal within a period of three months from today.

15. If such appeal is filed, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna shall decide the same on its own merits and by giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on merits of the case of the respective parties. In any event, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna shall not dismiss the appeal of the petitioner solely on the ground of delay.

16. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

17. Rule in above terms.
 
  CDJLawJournal