Dismissed

S Nagarathna, Chittoor Dist v. Dist Collector, Chittoor Dist and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Nov 2019WP/29363/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the termination of an Anganwadi worker. The court held that the termination was based on complaint evidence showing persistent quarrels, absenteeism, and neglect of duties, and that the petitioner failed to refute these allegations or claim the complaint was motivated. Consequently, no enquiry was deemed impermissible, and the petiotion was dismisse

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

S Nagarathna, Chittoor Dist Vs Dist… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.29363 of 2012

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus holding the action of second respondent in issuing the proceedings No.1019/A/2012 dated 31.07.2012 terminating the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi worker without issuing any notice and conducting enquiry as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and for a consequential direction to set aside the impugned order.

¶5

2. The petitioner’s case is that she was selected as Anganwadi worker on 29.10.1992 and as per the proceedings No.15/93 dated 28.01.1993 of third respondent she was posted at Devalamkuruvapalle Village, Chittoor District and ever since she has been working as Anganwadi worker without any complaints. While so, on 11.11.2010 third respondent issued Memo No.19/A/ICDS/2010 stating that when the supervisor visited the Anganwadi centre on 06.11.2010, the petitioner and one Ramanamma Aya were quarrelling in front of the supervisor and not performing the duties properly and the petitioner has not received the earlier Memo issued by her. The petitioner submitted her explanation denying all the allegations. Thereupon the second respondent in her proceedings No.1019/A/2012 dated 31.07.2012 terminated the petitioner and Aya from the service without issuing any notice and conducting enquiry basing on the note file approved by first respondent dated 26.07.2012. The said order is

¶6

¶7

UDPR,J W.P.No.29363 of 2012

¶8

cryptic and without assigning any reasons and same is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition.

¶10

3. The second respondent filed counter denying the petition averments and inter alia contending thus:

¶11

The supervisor has given complaint against the petitioner as well as helper narrating about the quarrel between them due to personal issues. The CDPO issued Memo Nos.1/A/OCDS/2010 and 4/A/ICDS/2010 dated 06.09.2010 respectively to the petitioner and helper. The petitioner and helper submitted reply on 13.09.2010 and 16.09.2010 respectively. Thereafter the villagers have given complaints against the petitioner and helper on 02.04.2011 and 24.04.2012. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner and helper were regularly quarrelling with each other on personal issues. It is false to state that the second respondent issued proceedings dated 31.07.2012 and terminated the petitioner from service without issuing notice and conducting any enquiry. The third respondent in fact issued Memo to the petitioner as well as helper bearing Memo No.5/ICDS/2012 dated 17.07.2012 through registered post with acknowledgment due stating that on 16.07.2012 the petitioner did not attend Devalamkurapalle Anganwadi centre and the building was locked and the children sat outside the building, the petitioner has not handed over the building key to anybody and behaved in a negligent manner and attended

¶12

¶13

UDPR,J W.P.No.29363 of 2012

¶14

Union meeting at Chittoor. On that day snake bite was occurred to one child by name Priya. The petitioner refused the memo and the same was returned to ICDS office, Madanapalle. Subsequently the third respondent informed to second respondent through letter No.67/ICDS/2012 dated 18.07.2012 informing about the petitioner refusing to receive the memo. The respondents denied that the petitioner was terminated without any enquiry.

¶15

4. Heard Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Women & Child Welfare representing the respondents.

¶16

5. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow?

¶17

6. The report in LR No.61/ICDS/2012, dated 17.07.2012 submitted by respondent Nos.2 to R3, the copy of which is filed with the material papers, would show that the writ petitioner works as Anganwadi Worker and one D. Venkata Ramanamma works as helper in Devalamkuruvapalle, Anganwadi centre and often they were quarrelling with each other since last three years and neglected the duties of Anganwadi centre. The villagers complained about their negligent attitude in attending the duties. Earlier, a report was submitted to the Project Director, Chittoor District about the conduct of Anganwadi worker and the helper under reference No.64/ICDS/2011, dated 07.04.2011 but no orders were received and also the villagers complained to the District Collector during “Praja

¶18

¶19

UDPR,J W.P.No.29363 of 2012

¶20

Patham Programme” against the two workers and requested him to remove them from service keeping in view the future of their children, who attend the centre.

¶21

7. In her report, respondent No.3 further stated that since last six months, the petitioner was absenting herself from attending the project meetings and sector meetings. Further, she was absenting from attending Anganwadi centre without leave or permission. The centre was being locked by the worker and kept the key with her. The helper represented that the petitioner was continuously absent from 10.07.2012 and attended the centre on 17.07.2012 only and thereby the helper was constrained to sit outside the centre with the children. On 16.07.2012 at 11:00 A.M., a child by name Priya received a snake bite, first aid was done and she was taken to hospital immediately. Villagers became angry upon the said incident and curtly informed the respondent No.3 that they would send their children to the Anganwadi centre only after the removal of the petitioner and Anganwadi helper. Thus, the respondent No.3 sought for necessary action.

¶22

8. The material papers also contained the complaint of the villagers, dated 02.04.2011 addressed to respondent No.3, wherein they complained that their children were not attending the centre as proper food was not given and everyday both the petitioner and helper were quarrelling with each other. Even though, once the villagers conducted panchayat, both of them did not heed the advice of the elders. The villagers thus, prayed in the complaint to terminate both

¶23

¶24

UDPR,J W.P.No.29363 of 2012

¶25

of them and appoint some other persons. A memo was issued to the writ petitioner by post but the same was returned as ‘not claimed’. The copy of the return postal cover dated 31.07.2012 contains the said endorsement.

¶26

9. Thus, from the above material, it is clear that both the writ petitioner as well as the helper were not discharging their duties scrupulously at the Anganwadi centre at Devalamkuruvapalle village, they have been quarrelling with each other on some issues since years together and neglected their assigned duties. The villagers gave complaint to respondent No.3 informing that they were vexed with the conduct of both the employees and their children stopped attending the centre for, teaching was not done and proper food was not given to them. The height of their anger was reflected in their complaint to the effect that unless both the workers were removed, they would not send their children to the Anganwadi centre. The petitioner has not refuted the complaint made by the villagers nor she claimed that it was a motivated complaint on the part of the villagers. So, the attitude of the petitioner and the other worker was such that they rendered themselves unfit for the post which requires utmost patience, caring, nursing and loving towards the children. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that no enquiry was conducted and on baseless allegations she was removed from service. This argument is preposterous. In the light of the fact that she refused to receive the memo, I find no

¶27

¶28

UDPR,J W.P.No.29363 of 2012

¶29

illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 terminating the service of the petitioner.

¶30

10. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶31

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

¶32

stand closed.

¶33

__________________________

¶34

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶35

13.11.2019. MVA / MS

S Nagarathna, Chittoor Dist v. Dist Collector, Chittoor Dist and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Nagarathna, Chittoor Dist v. Dist Collector, Chittoor Dist and 2 Others

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

Kasina Veera Bhadra Rama Prasad Vs Rudraraju Rajesh Varma

Smt. Juthuka Suryakumari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Jorige Hima Bindu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sali Raghavulu Vs the State of Ap

K.Shankar Gupta Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Satya Sai Educational Society, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh