Can an Anganwadi worker explain a lapse in the discharge of her duties by claiming that a woman’s expression did not indicate that she was pregnant? The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the termination of an Anganwadi worker after finding no fault with the authorities’ decision to discontinue her contractual engagement following the death of a pregnant woman in the area under her supervision.
Dismissing her appeal against the State of Haryana and other respondents, the Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that the explanation furnished by the appellant revealed a “major shortcoming” in rendering the services expected of her.
The appellant, an Anganwadi worker, was required to visit households in her designated area and take care of pregnant women. The matter arose after a pregnant woman died in the area under her supervision without any report from the appellant regarding her condition.
The Bench noted that a Single Judge had earlier refused to interfere with the termination order after finding that no satisfactory explanation had been furnished by the appellant for the deficiency in services.
Referring to the appellant’s defence, the court observed that she had claimed the deceased woman’s family had not informed her about the pregnancy.
The Bench reproduced a portion of her reply to the show-cause notice, stating: “During the home visit, I observed her going to the terrace quickly to do her household chores like carrying a wet heavy blanket. Her expression did not indicate that she was pregnant.”
Describing the explanation as “farfetched”, the Bench held it clearly indicated “there was a major shortcoming in rendering of services expected from the appellant. In such circumstances, the contractual
employment has been discontinued pursuant to a show-cause notice served upon the appellant. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken in the present case. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly,” the Bench concluded.
Why it matters: The ruling makes it clear that frontline healthcare and welfare workers cannot evade responsibility for monitoring beneficiaries by relying on superficial observations or the absence of information from the family when their role itself requires active identification and tracking of pregnant women.
