Allowed

Gangiri Chinnammulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jul 2022WP/11485/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Justice K. Manmadha Rao in this Writ Petition No. 11485 of 2020, Single Bench judgment, examined the termination of services of a petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker. The Court found that the respondents failed to conduct a proper enquiry on allegations of embezzlement and proceeded to remove the petitioner without considering her detailed explanation. Consequently, the Court held the termin

What did the court decide?

Impugned removal proceedings No. 70/JA/2019 dated 28.04.2020 set aside and respondents directed to reinstate petitioner within four weeks.

Gangiri Chinnammulu Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11485 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the in terminating the services of the petitioner vide impugned Proceedings No. 70/JA/2019, dated 28.04.2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents No.3, 4 & 5 to reinstate and continue the services of the petitioner and pass such other orders....”

¶6

Heard Mr. K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for the respondents.

¶7

The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that she was initially appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 05.08.2002 by the 3^rd respondent and allotted to Gajureddy Palem Anganwadi Centre, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The husband of the petitioner had entered into MOU with MPDO, Rambilli Mandal for construction of Individual Septic Lavatories (ISL) to the beneficiaries under Swatch Bharat Scheme and for the purpose of payment the husband of the petitioner mentioned the bank account of the petitioner in the said MOU. On 15.07.2019 a complaint was made with false allegations that the husband of the petitioner was misused the funds, which was allotted in Gajireddy Palem Village to construct 80 IHHL and further alleged that on records it was shown as completed and in fact it was not completed on ground and the amount was credited to the account of the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint, the 5^th respondent issued

¶8

¶9

Memos dated 09.10.2019 and 04.02.2020 instructed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,70,000/- to the account of the Government and called for explanation, for which she submitted detailed reply. Later the 5^th respondent issued Show-cause notice on 10.02.2020 directed the petitioner to submit her explanation, for which the petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 12.02.2020 requested to drop all further proceedings. The 5^th respondent without considering the explanation of the petitioner, without conducting proper investigation has passed the removal proceedings No. 70/JA/2019, dated 28.04.2020 removing the petitioner from services as Anganwadi Worker, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition came to be filed.

¶10

Per contra, 5^th respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that a complaint dated 21.07.2019 was received alleging that there was embezzlement of funds in 80 IHHL construction works by the petitioner’s husband by name Mr. Chepala Chittibabu, for which the revenue records clearly showing that the said works were completed, but on physical verification the works were completed and further an amount of Rs.8,70,000/- was drawn and deposited in the petitioner’s account No.11653696853 and on enquiry it was found that the funds was embezzled by the petitioner. Therefore the District Collector, Visakhapatnam directing the 4^th respondent to recover the said amount from the petitioner and also take disciplinary action, accordingly issued Memos and called for explanation, since the petitioner failed to explain the reasons for having extra amount of Rs. 8,70,000/- in her personal bank account, which was operating for the purpose of depositing honorarium of Anganwadi Worker/ Anganwadi

¶11

¶12

Helper, she was reluctant to deposit the said amount to the SE, REWS & S, Visakhapatnam, account on or before 10.02.2020 even after receiving the Memo dated 05.02.2020 and the explanation submitted by her is not satisfactory and finally the respondents issued removal order dated 28.04.2020 and removed the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Worker. Therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶13

The main contention of the petitioner is that basing on the false complaint lodged against the petitioner with regard to deposit of amount of Rs. 8,70,000/- to the account of the petitioner, the 5^th respondent without considering the submissions of the petitioner and without conducting the proper enquiry, straight away issued impugned proceedings by removing the petitioner from services Anganwadi Worker, though the petitioner submitted detailed explanation dated 10.02.2020 against the memo No.1/2019, dated 04.02.2020 to the 5^th respondent stating that the petitioner came to know that for the last two years the Mandal Development Officials deposited the amounts on instalment basis, for which the petitioner approached the MPDO officials questioned them without her consent, how the amount was deposited in her account, then they replied that the husband of the petitioner was entered into an agreement with them to construct IHHSL for construction of Toilets, who given a letter stating that his bank account is in hold, hence he requested to deposit the said amount to his wife’s account i.e petitioner account. Therefore they deposited the amounts to that account. Therefore the said amount is no way concerned to the petitioner.

¶14

It is apparent on the face of the records that the petitioner had two accounts one is at State Bank of India, Rambilli Branch

¶15

¶16

bearing A/c No. 11653696853, in which the amount as alleged is deposited by the Mandal Development Office and another account is with A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Rambilli branch, bearing A/c No.7310212952-9. As per Memorandum of understanding (MOU) the husband of the petitioner mentioned the account of the petitioner vide A/c 11653696853 for the purpose of deposit the amounts under Swatch Bharat Mission programme by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Rambilli. Therefore the husband of the petitioner extracted works as per MOU and various payments were made by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, for which the petitioner is no way concerned. Further she pleaded that she does not know about the alleged deposit of amount in her account, for which she approached the Bank and questioned the same and replied that the husband of the petitioner given consent letter to deposit the said amount in the petitioner’s account, as his account is in hold.

¶17

Anyhow, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the respondents, for which the respondents launched an enquiry against the petitioner, but without considering the submissions of the petitioner straight away removed the petitioner from the services. Though the respondents did not take any criminal action and no case was registered against the petitioner. If really the petitioner or her husband found any embezzlement, the duty caste on the respondents to proceed with proper enquiry as per law, for which the respondents have not taken any action so far. Therefore it appears that the respondents failed to act upon the subject issue in a proper and perspective manner.

¶18

Therefore this Court finds that the respondents failed to conduct proper enquiry on the alleged embezzlement against the

¶19

¶20

petitioner and without considering the explanation of the petitioner and imposed final punishment in terminating the services of the petitioner vide impugned proceedings No.70/JA/2019, dated 28.04.2020 is highly illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and further directing the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to reinstate the petitioner into services as Anganwadi Worker, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶22

____________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶23

Date: 20.07.2022 KK

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.11485 OF 2020

¶27

Date: 20.07.2022

¶28

Gangiri Chinnammulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangiri Chinnammulu v. The State 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

U.V. Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J.J.S.Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

P. Rama Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Saleem, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Sai babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.V. Pavan Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh