Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua upheld the termination of an Anganwari worker who persistently declined to comply with departmental instructions to shift the Anganwari Centre from her residence to the local Mahila Mandal Bhawan. Dismissing the worker’s challenge to the order, the Court held that the choice of location for the centre lay with the competent authorities and that the worker was required to follow their directions. Justice Dua observed that, as an employee, she was expected to implement such orders and not substitute them with her own contrary decisions.

The petitioner was serving as an Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Sadhwani-I, Circle Khudla, Tehsil Baldwara, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. On 24 March 2023, the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhambla along with villagers submitted a representation to the Child Development Project Officer, requesting that the centre be shifted from the petitioner’s house to another building.

Also Read: Consensual Relationship Turning Acrimonious Cannot Trigger Rape Charges : Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Repeated Rape On False Promise Of Marriage

On 13 April 2023, the officer directed the petitioner to move the centre to the Mahila Mandal Bhawan. Instead of complying, the petitioner shifted the centre to her brother-in-law’s house, which again drew objections. Repeated directions were issued on 20 April, 15 May, 20 May, 19 July, and 26 July 2023, warning of departmental action.

A show cause notice was served on 1 August 2023, followed by three statutory notices dated 14 December 2023, 29 December 2023, and 12 January 2024, under Clause 7 of the Scheme for appointment of Anganwari Workers. The petitioner continued to defy orders. Respondents also recorded instances of misbehavior by the petitioner’s husband, leading to FIRs.

On 27 June 2024, the petitioner’s services were terminated for misconduct, indiscipline, and insubordination. The petitioner challenged the termination, arguing that the punishment was harsh, while the respondents defended the action as lawful under the scheme provisions.

The Court focused on the petitioner’s persistent refusal to comply with repeated directions to relocate the centre. It recorded: “Be that as it may. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the directions issued to her by the competent authority for shifting the Anganwari Centre from her house to the Mahila Mandal Bhawan.”

Clarifying the limits of the employee’s role, the Court stated: “It was not for the petitioner to decide where to run the Anganwari Centre. As an employee, all that was required of her was to abide by the directions issued to her by the higher officers and not to sit over the same and take her independent decisions contrary to the directions.”

On the nature of misconduct, the Court observed: “It is a case of gross insubordination and indiscipline on part of the petitioner. In fact, respondents had given the petitioner ample opportunities in form of office letters, notices and orders for shifting the Anganwari Centre to Mahila Mandal Bhawan.”

Assessing the consequences of continued defiance, the Court recorded: “Therefore, when the petitioner fully conscious of the directions issued to her by the respondent/employer, chose not to comply them, she was guilty of gross insubordination, which cannot be tolerated in public service. Petitioner exhibited scant regard to the orders of her direct higher officers. She did not maintain either the decorum, dignity of her position or that of her superiors. Respondents were left with no option. Insubordination cannot be taken lightly as it affects hierarchy of position and the chain of command, which in turn, affects working of employer.”

On proportionality of punishment, the Court concluded: “In my considered view, termination of her service cannot be termed as perverse or disproportionate.”

Also Read: Vehicle Ownership Not Evidence Of Drug-Trade Earnings; Inference Was Biased: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention

The Court directed: “In view of above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.  “Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Lalita Devi Versus State of H.P. & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:38204
Case Number: CWP No.6988 of 2024
Bench: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua