Disposed

E. Neelavathi, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2019WP/19256/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a show cause notice threatening termination of an Anganwadi Helper for partisan activity. Court disposed of petition granting liberty to file fresh explanation and directing respondent not to terminate pending response.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh explanation within two weeks; respondent directed not to terminate petitioner until explanation is disposed.

E. Neelavathi, Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19256 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed “challenging the show cause notice dated 18.11.2019, issued by respondent No.2, calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why she should not be removed from service as Anganwadi Helper without conducting any enquiry and contrary to the allegations levelled vide memo dated 12.04.2019”.

¶5

Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Anganwadi Helper vide proceedings dated 31.01.2008, and since then she has been discharging her duties. Vide memo dated 12.04.2019, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to submit her explanation within three days as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her for asking people to vote for Telugu Desam Party and the said news item was published in Sakshi Local Daily newspaper. In pursuance thereof, petitioner submitted her explanation to respondent No.2 and requested to drop all further proceedings. Respondent No.2, however, did not pass any orders thereon. While so, respondent No.2 issued the impugned show cause notice dated 18.11.2019, calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why she should not be removed from service, referring to news item in Sakshi Local Daily newspaper. Petitioner submitted representation dated 22.11.2019, enclosing the statement of villagers, stating that, as per the directions of the respondents, she is

¶6

¶7

discharging her duties as Anganwadi Helper by cooking food neatly, serving nutritious food to pregnant women, maintaining premises neatly and striving hard to increase admission of children to school and requested to drop all further proceedings. Challenging the show cause notice dated 18.11.2019, the present writ petition is filed.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned show cause notice contains certain allegations which are not mentioned in the memo dated 12.04.2019 and they have been inserted subsequently and respondent No.2 has determined to terminate the services without affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, on written instructions from respondent No.2 dated 30.11.2019, would submit that, several memos were issued to the petitioner for not discharging her duties properly as per job chart and impugned show cause notice dated 18.11.2019 was issued, to which she submitted her explanation which is not satisfactory; that the procedure for initiation of disciplinary action on anganwadi worker’s and anganwadi helper’s has been contemplated vide memo dated 14.02.21997 of the Director, Women Development and Child Welfare; and the posts of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers being not permanent and are honorary posts, CCA Rules are not applicable to them.

¶10

¶11

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would file a detailed explanation raising all the contentions to the show cause notice dated 18.11.2019.

¶12

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh explanation to show cause notice dated 18.11.2019 within two weeks from today. On receipt of such explanation from the petitioner within the time stipulated, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with relevant circulars. Respondent No.2 is directed not to terminate the petitioner till the explanation filed by the petitioner is disposed of and communicated to the petitioner. If no explanation is filed by the petitioner within the time stipulated, respondent No.2 is at liberty to take action in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶13

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J

¶15

Date:02.12.2019 Note:CC three days Bo usd

E. Neelavathi, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Neelavathi, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Appala Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bollapalli Yesupadam Vs Chebrolu Veeranjaneyulu

Adapa Jhansi Lakshmi Died Vs Parvathareddy Sundaramani Balamani Kumari

C v Ramana Vs the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

Mediboina Sreedhar Reddy, Guntur Dist Vs Director of Higher Education, Hyd and 3 Ot

P.Lakshmi Narasamma, Vs the STAThe State of Andhra Pradesh Te of Ap