JYOTI RAVINDRA SABLE v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS
Writ Petition - Quashing of Anganwadi Sevika's Disqualification based on Vague Hearsay Evidence over Valid Statutory Residence Documents.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:13821
Decision Date: 01-04-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme; Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 13.08.2014; Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Inquiry
- Facts: The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika at Padoshi village, having topped the merit list. A primary condition for the appointment was residence in the same village. The petitioner submitted a Gram Sevak certificate, a self-declaration, an Aadhaar card, and a Ration Card—all showing her address at Padoshi. Respondent No. 4, the next candidate in merit, filed a complaint alleging the petitioner actually resided in Sherewadi and only stayed in Padoshi on a rental basis after the advertisement. Based on an inquiry report by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) which relied on hearsay and an undated "Panchanama" suggesting the petitioner lived elsewhere, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) disqualified and discharged the petitioner from service.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner challenged the discharge order before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then approached the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) via a Writ Petition seeking to quash the disqualification and for reinstatement.
- Issue: Whether the petitioner was rightfully disqualified from the post of Anganwadi Sevika on the grounds of non-residence, based on hearsay information and disputed documents, despite possessing valid statutory residence proofs.
- Holding: No, the disqualification was erroneous and based on "absurd counts". The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the petitioner had produced all three requisite documents (Gram Sevak certificate, Aadhaar, and Ration Card) to prove residence, and their genuineness was not disputed. The CDPO's report was found to be "vague" as it relied on hearsay from unidentified sources without a meaningful investigation. The Court noted that even if the petitioner resided on a rental basis, it did not constitute disqualification unless non-residence at the crucial time was proven. Furthermore, the "Panchanama" relied upon by the authorities was undated, only a photocopy, and flatly disputed by the petitioner; a prudent mind would not believe she signed a statement against her own interests. Finally, the fact that her son studied in a different village was held insufficient to negate her residence at the place of appointment.
🔒 For Members Only