ARUNA RAMCHANDRA VALVIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:23888-DB



                                                                  912 WP3527.2025
                                               -1-

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 3527 OF 2025

              1.   ARUNA RAMCHANDRA VALVI,
                   Age: 36 Years, Occu.: Service as
                   Block Community Mobilizer,
                   R/o.: Hatdhui, Khuntamodi, Nandurbar,
                   District: Nandurbar                           .. Petitioner


                                      Versus

              1.   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
                   Through its Secretary,
                   Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
                   Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

              2.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                   Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar

              3.  THE TALUKA HEALTH OFFICER,
                  Taluka Dhadgaon,
                  District: Nandurbar                            .. Respondents
                                             ...
                     Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Dipesh D. Pande
                         AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. R. K. Ingole
              Advocate for Respondents No.2&3 : Mr. Rakesh Nemichandji Jain
                                             ...

                                CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
                                        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ.
                                   Date : 17.06.2026

              PER COURT :-

              1.           The present Petitioner challenges her relieving order

              dated 04.02.2025 and the recovery of Rs.45,315/- issued by

              Respondent No.2 in this Petition.
                                                    912 WP3527.2025
                                 -2-

2.            Heard Mr. Dipesh D. Pande, learned Advocate for the

Petitioner, Mr. R. K. Ingole, learned AGP for Respondent No.1 and

Mr. Rakesh Nemichandji Jain, learned Advocate for Respondents

No.2 and 3.


3.            The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that

the Petitioner was initially selected as ASHA Worker under the

National Health Mission in the year 2007 till 2013. Thereafter,

she was selected as a Block Facilitator in the year 2014. Finally,

she was selected as Block Community Mobilizer in the year 2019

till 04.02.2025. According to the Petitioner, she was doing her

official duty with dedication and as expected. The husband of the

Petitioner was the Sarpanch of the village and due to political

rivalry some bogus complaints were filed against her. A

committee came to be appointed to make an inquiry against her.

The Petitioner has cooperated with the committee however she

was not allowed to put-forth her explanation. The Inquiry

Committee has submitted it’s report on 12.09.2024. Respondent

No.2 under the pressure from Union of the Block Facilitator and

ASHA workers namely AITUK and the agitation under letter

dated 08.01.2025 without issuing show cause notice to the

Petitioner has directly called her for hearing vide letter dated
                                                    912 WP3527.2025
                                -3-

21.01.2025. The date of hearing was fixed on 27.01.2025. The

Petitioner was not aware of the complaint against her. As no show

cause notice was issued she could not place relevant documents

on record and was required to orally explain the nature of her job.

She had denied the alleged misappropriation allegation. No record

in respect of alleged misappropriation was shown to her.

Respondent No.2 had then passed the order of relieving the

Petitioner vide communication dated 04.02.2025 and directed

the recovery of an amount of Rs.45,315/-. Thereafter also the

Petitioner on 07.02.2025 had made application to Respondent

No.2 and requested that she be allowed to place her explanation

and to led evidence. However, it was not considered. Therefore,

she is constrained approach this court.


4.         The learned Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3

relies on the affidavit-in-reply of Dr. Ravindra B. Sonawane, the

employee in Respondent No.2. He submits that the Petitioner was

initially appointed as ASHA Worker in the year 2007 and then at

the time of relieving her she was serving as the Block Community

Mobilizer. On the receipt of complaint against the Petitioner, on

15.12.2023, Inquiry Committee was constituted. After the

thorough inquiry the report came to be submitted on 12.09.2024.
                                                  912 WP3527.2025
                               -4-

It has been held by the committee that the allegations of

misappropriation have been proved. In fact, the Petitioner vide

notices dated 27.09.2024, 07.10.2024 and 21.10.2024 was called

upon to produce any such documents to refute allegations. There

is a specific mention of submission of report and visit of the

inquiry committee, wherein the financial inconsistencies have

been revealed. The vouchers, bills in respect of payment of the

ASHA Workers were not submitted and, therefore, she was called

upon to submit these documents. There was no response from the

Petitioner. It was held by the committee that the amounts of

ASHA Workers were not paid regularly, the information

regarding account and Aadhar numbers of ASHA Workers were

not filled properly and whenever ASHA Workers used to ask

about the remuneration the Petitioner used to gave a vague

answer. Therefore, taking into consideration her conduct, she was

relieved from her post.


5.         The facts which are not in dispute are that under a

scheme the Petitioner was appointed initially as ASHA Worker.

Thereafter, as a Block Facilitator and then as Block Community

Mobilizer. The appointment orders are on record and it can be

seen that her appointment was on temporary basis. The
                                                    912 WP3527.2025
                                -5-

communication dated 08.01.2015 by Commissioner (Family

Welfare) under the National Health Mission, Maharashtra to all

the Chief Executive Officers of the Zilla Parishads specifically

carved out the duties of various posts including the post of Block

Community Mobilizer. Upon receipt of the complaint, a committee

of 4 members was appointed under the orders dated 15.12.2023

by the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. It

appears that the committee worked for about 2 years and had not

submitted any report and, therefore, the Union of ASHA workers

had made a complaint. But prior to that the report was submitted

by the committee to the District Health Officer on 12.09.2024,

wherein the irregularities in the financial transactions were

noted so also the grievances were considered.


6.         The   learned   Advocate    for   the   Petitioner   has

vehemently submitted that opportunity of refuting the allegations

was never given and, therefore, the Petitioner could not give

evidence in support of her defence. However, it is to be noted from

her own communication dated 07.02.2025 that it was after she

was relieved she accepted that certain amount has been

transferred in her account. In this respect, it is stated by the

Petitioner that the said amount has been then repaid by her.
                                                      912 WP3527.2025
                                 -6-

There is another communication that is filed by the Petitioner

herself on record given by her on 14.01.2025, wherein she has

stated that amount of Rs.29,325/- and 15,140/- owed by one

Sunita Vasave was come to her account and then on the said

communication itself said Sunita Vasave has stated that she has

received the amount of Rs.45,465/-. If we consider these amounts

they are from July 2024 to September 2024 and then November

2023 and March 2024. Thus, the Petitioner admits that these

amounts were towards the payment of said Sunita Vasave. Only

after the inquiry committee was constituted the Petitioner has

returned the amount. There was no minimum action on her part,

if at all it was mistake on the part of the office; to bring it to the

notice of the office that such an amount has been wrongly

credited to her account.


7.          Along with affidavit-in-reply Respondents No.2 and 3

has given copy of the 3 notices issued on 27.09.2024, 07.10.2024

and 21.10.2024 giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to place

on record the documents in respect of the vouchers, bills etc.

regarding the financial irregularities noted by the Inquiry

Committee. Therefore, when the Petitioner is a temporary

employee and there is sufficient evidence on record to show that
                                                   912 WP3527.2025
                               -7-

an opportunity of hearing was given then only the relieving letter

has been issued, we do not find any merit in the present Petition.

This is not a fit case, where we should exercise our powers under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition stands

dismissed.




(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)        (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)

marathe