JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order in Annexure-3 in which her services had been terminated.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was selected to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Mulakudai Anganwadi Centre and accordingly after receipt of appointment order, she joined the post. Thereafter, she was sent for training in June, 1991. After completing training for three months, she again joined in the Anganwadi Centre. It is further alleged in the writ application that one group of villagers wanted the Anganwadi Centre to be located at one place whereas another group of villagers wanted torun the centre at another place of their choice. In view of the above, there was disturbance in running the centre peacefully and it was intimated to the opposite parties 1 to 4 by the petitioner. Initially the Anganwadi Centre was functioning at Kasinath Mahila Samiti building of the said village and while the matter stood thus, one of the villagers namely, Hare Krushna Panda, donated some land under a registered gift deed for construction of Anganwadi Centre and the same was accepted by the Sub-Collector, Balasore. After construction of the house, the group who constructed the house demanded to shift the Centre to the newly constructed building whereas the other group demanded to run the Centre at Kasinath Mahiia Samiti building in view of such dispute between the two groups of the villagers, the petitioner could not run the Centre properly and it was known to the opposite parties. However, Annexure-3 was issued on 25th March, 1993 terminating the services of the petitioner on the allegation that she was remaining absent from duties from 25th December, 1992. It is specific case of the petitioner that she had not been given any opportunity of hearing at all before the order of termination was passed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 wherein the dispute with regard to shifting of the Anganwadi Centre is admitted. However, it is alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was remaining absent from the Centre as a result of which the Centre was not functioning properly and accordingly an explanation was called for from the petitioner and warnings were given to terminate her service. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 on letters written to the petitioner vide Annexures-C/2, D/2, E/2 and F/2 and it is stated that the petitioner had been intimated about the irregularities committed by her.
4. Opposite party No. 5 has also filed a separate counter affidavit in which it is stated that she had been appointed in place of the petitioner and is continuing since almost a decade and there has been no complaint against the said opposite party and, therefore, her appointment to the post may not be disturbed.
5. The only question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the order of termination without notice to the petitioner is justified or not. Admittedly, the petitioner had been duly selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker in the said centre and continued in the post till her termination. Admittedly, there was dispute amongst two groups of villagers regarding location of the Anganwadi Centre and according to the petitioner, such dispute created bottleneck in running the Anganwadi Centre smoothly. It also appears from the counter affidavit that the petitioner had been intimated about certain irregularities committed in the centre. Not a single document has been produced by the opposite parties to show that before the services of the petitioner was terminated, she had been given an opportunity of hearing. There was no notice to show cause and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the order of termination was passed. In view of the above, the fundamental principle of natural justice having not been followed, the order of termination in Annexure-3 is liable to be struck down.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 5 contended’ that the opposite party No. 5 had been appointed in place of the petitioner and is continuing in the said centre for twelve years and there was no complaint against her. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that the writ application was filed almost four years after the order of termination was passed.
So far as delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, it is stated that challenging the order of termination the petitioner had approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 105 (C) of 1995 and notice was issued on 1.2.1995. Only when the matter was taken up for hearing, it was pointed out that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction ‘to decide the case and accordingly, the petitioner had withdrawn the petition on 9.12.1998 and filed the writ application on 22.12.1998. Since the petitioner had approached a wrong forum and the case remained pending there for almost three years, I am of the view that the delay in filing the writ application has been properly explained and accordingly, the writ application cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the opposite party No. 5 should be disturbed after having worked in the Centre almost for twelve years. Since I have already held that the termination order is illegal, I have no other option except quashing Annexure-3 and directing that the petitioner be taken back to service. So far as opposite party No. 5 is concerned, the opposite parties 1 to 3 may consider her adjustment in some other nearby Anganwadi Centre within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
7. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.