Allowed

Smt.v Annapurna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2022WP/12032/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the termination order was illegal and arbitrary because the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's explanation and did not follow the directive of the earlier order in W.P.No.23561 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings dated 30.04.2021 are set aside, and the respondents are directed to conduct a proper inquiry within four weeks.

Smt.v Annapurna, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.12032 of 2021

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

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

¶6

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No.2/B.2020, dated 30.04.2021 of the 5^th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Order in W.P.No.23561 of 2020, dated 17.02.2021 and consequently set aside the impugned order by directing to reinstate the petitioner and pass such other orders.”

¶7

Heard Mr. G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶8

and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

¶9

The precise case of the petitioner is that she was applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker and appointed vide proceedings dated 07.11.1991 for the Surampalem Village. Subsequently she was transferred to Katravulapalli, ICDS Project, Rangampeta vide order dated 15.07.1995, again she was transferred to Ramesampeta, Anganwadi Centre, Kotapadu Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District in the year 1999. The name of the petitioner was changed by Gazette publication on 06.02.2003 as Vajrapu Polamma as Vajrapu Annapuran. Therefore the name of the petitioner was changed from the date of her appointment as Anganwadi Worker. The father of the petitioner made complaint against local leader/ 6^th

¶10

¶11

respondent in F.I.R.No.43 of 2019, dated 04.03.2019, which is pending. Therefore at the instance of 6^th respondent, the official respondents issued Memos and notices to the petitioner on false and flimsy grounds, for which the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation. Subsequently the 5^th respondent issued proceedings dated 23.11.2020 terminating the petitioner from services as Anganwadi Worker. Therefore she filed W.P.No.23561 of 2020 and this Court set aside the impugned proceedings dated 23.11.2020 and permitting the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner in proper perspective and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the 5^th respondent issued notice dated 25.03.2021 along with show-cause notice dated 28.12.2018, for which the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation dated 03.04.2021 to the 5^th respondent. The respondents without considering the explanation of the petitioner again issued same as earlier order to the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition.

¶12

Per contra, 5^th respondent filed counter denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that there is allegation with regard to food misuse against the petitioner by the villagers of Surampalem Village. Therefore she was transferred to China Doddigunta Village in November, 1994. But the Sarpanch and villagers of China Doddigunta did not allow the petitioner to join in their village by knowing the irregularities committed by the petitioner in her previous station. Hence the petitioner again transferred to the

¶13

¶14

Surampalem Village from China Diddigunta Village vide letter dated 15.07.1995 and the villagers are also not allowed to join in their village. Later she was transferred to Ramesampeta Anganwadi Centre, Kotapadu Village. As per records, the petitioner is not at all sincere in her duty in entire service. Therefore several memos were issued by the respondents and called for explanation. The petitioner refused the Memos, which was endorsed on the postal covers and did not submit her explanation, which shows the callous attitude of the petitioner in rejecting the official communications made from the respondents by Registered Post, she was terminated from service as per orders of the District Level Selection Committee vide proceedings dated 23.11.2020 of the CDPO, ICDS, Rangampeta. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23561 of 2020. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the 4^th respondent issued notice to the petitioner with a direction to submit her explanation and also to attend before the District Level Selection Committee on 03.04.2021. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 03.04.2021 and attended before the Committee. The explanation submitted by the petitioner is not at all convincing and far away from the truth. Even after termination order dated 23.11.2020 of the CDPO, ICDS, Rangampeta to Ms. V.Annapurna has not handed over the keys and charge of Anganwadi Centre. Hence panchanama conducted in the presence of elders. Further the food grains of the AWC were also misplaced, for which a case in Crime No.209 of 2020 was filed and the police enquiry is under process. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the writ petition.

¶15

¶16

The 6^th respondent filed counter and contended that the petitioner committed several malpractices and on complaint made by the 6^th respondent an enquiry was conducted and terminated the petitioner from the services. A private dispute is intended to be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not permissible under law and there is a dispute and a crime being registered between the father of the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, which cannot be taken into consideration while adjudicating the writ petition. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶17

It is evident on record that the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No. 23561 of 2020 and Court by its order dated 17.02.2021 set aside the proceedings No.2/B/2020, dated 23.11.2020 of the 4^th respondent and permitting the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner in proper perspective and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

¶18

It is an undisputed fact that pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.23561 of 2020, the respondents issued notice along with show-cause notice issued earlier to the petitioner and called for explanation. The petitioner also submitted her explanation and appeared in person. But the respondents simply said that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is far away from the truth and hence the same is not convincing and on that ground, issued termination order to the petitioner without mentioning proper reasons is highly illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, the above said facts were already discussed by this Court in W.P.No.23561 of 2020 and

¶19

¶20

issued direction to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders. But it is apparent on the face of the record that though the respondents issued notice to the petitioner and called for explanation, but failed to conduct proper enquiry and without considering the explanation of the petitioner and again issued impugned order like earlier order. Therefore there is no development took place in the matter and the respondents also not acted upon as per procedure, which fact is also noticed by this Court in W.P.No.23561 of 2020 also.

¶21

Under these circumstances, this court finds that the reason for terminating this petitioner was not clear and not considered in proper perspective and failed to follow the order of this Court in W.P.No.23561 of 2020 by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned proceedings No.2/B.2020, dated 30.04.2021 issued by the 5^th respondent is declared as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. Further it is left open for the respondents to conduct proper enquiry as per law and take appropriate action, if there is any alleged irregularities against the petitioner, if so advised and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶23

__________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

Date: 22.07.2022.

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.12032 of 2021

¶29

Date: 22.07.2022. KK

Smt.v Annapurna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.v Annapurna, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Nizam, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Pasa Ramayyamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Vijaya Bhaskar, Vs the State of Ap

K.S.R. Lingeswari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhimavarapu Babu Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh