Partly allowed

Battula at Vemula Nagamani v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2022WP/21772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment holds that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available despite alternative remedies when principles of natural justice are violated. The court set aside termination proceedings due to lack of an enquiry and remanded the case for a fresh enquiry with a personal hearing. It also directed authorities to issue an examination hall ticket to the disqualified petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned termination proceedings; remand for elaborate enquiry within 8 weeks including personal hearing; direct issuance of hall ticket for Extension Officer examination scheduled on 18.09.

Battula at Vemula Nagamani Vs The State Of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

I.A. No.2 of 2022 In / and WRIT PETITION No.21772 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

…..to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring proceedings passed by the 3^rd respondent vide Proceedings No.01/DE02/2021, dated 01.07.2022 as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to allow the petitioner to the duties as Anganwadi worker at ICDS Brahmanapalli Village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, and to pay all the arrears of salary and emoluments attached to the post and pass such other orders.”

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare appearing for the respondents.

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working as Anganwadi Worker for the past twenty years in ICDS Project, Brahmanapalli Village, Rajupalem Mandal and has been rendering her service without any

¶9

¶10

remark. For the past five and half years, the petitioner has been suffering from Migraine and Asthama. Thereafter, she went on leave and extended till 2^nd September, 2021. On 3^rd September 2021, when she was attended to join duties, the 3^rd respondent refused to take her into duties and asked the petitioner to submit apology letter and get Sick and Fit certificate. As per the said oral direction, she submitted the same along with certificate for the leave period. However, the 3^rd respondent refused to take back her.

¶11

While the things stood thus, the 3^rd respondent issued Memo No.01/DEO2/2021, dated 13.09.2021 calling explanation from the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action against the petitioner cannot be taken. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 17.9.2021. However, the 3^rd respondent refused to take back her. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.10.2021 to the 2^nd respondent. But, the 2^nd respondent neither take any action nor directed the 3^rd respondent to take back her into duties. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petitions before this Court questioning the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 in not allowing the

¶12

¶13

petitioner to attend duties as Anganwadi Worker in Rajupalem ICDS Project, which are pending consideration. The 3^rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings No.01/DE02/2021, daed 01.07.2022 removed the petitioner from service on the ground that as certain allegations leveled against the petitioner were proved, the 2^nd respondent issued a memo No.27/A1/2022 dated 27.6.2022 and the 3^rd respondent was directed to remove her from service. As such, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶15

this Court passed an order dated 28.10.2014 in W.P.No. 32254 of 2014, which reads as follows:

¶16

“ Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side, the 2^nd respondent is directed to initiate enquiry against the petitioner, complete the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶17

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶18

the respondents without conducting elaborate enquiry and decided that the petitioner is found guilty and mechanically passed the impugned proceedings against the petitioner,

¶19

¶20

which is not in accordance with law and requested to remand the matter to the respondents for conducting elaborate enquiry and final report.

¶21

Learned Government Pleader for the respondents would contend that basing on certain allegations leveled against the petitioner were proved, the 3^rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 01.07.2022. He further contended that he has no objection to remand back the matter to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration.

¶22

In view of a close scrutiny of the impugned proceedings shows, as rightly argued by learned counsel for petitioner, , after noting in detail the allegations in the report the 3^rd respondent issued proceedings, without conducting any enquiry in accordance with law and violated the orders of this Court in earlier W.P.No.32254 of 2014, dated 28.10.2014.

¶23

Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having

¶24

¶25

found that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner therein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand.

¶26

No doubt, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel for respondents that an appeal provision is provided in the concerned rules and thereby the writ is not maintainable. I am not convinced with this argument for the reason, in the instant case there is a discernible violation of principles of natural justice as noted supra.

¶27

Though admittedly the petitioner submitted his written explanation, the same was not considered and no personal hearing was also granted to the petitioner at the time of enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable.

¶28

In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others¹ regarding

¶29

1 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998

¶30

¶31

maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of

¶32

alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus:

¶33

“14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

¶34

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).”

¶35

The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved

¶36

out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here.

¶37

During pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking to direct the respondent authorities to issue hall ticket to the petitioner allowing her to appear for the Extension Officer (Grade-II)

¶38

¶39

Supervisor examination scheduled to be held on 18.09.2022 and pass such other order.

¶40

The main grievance of the petitioner is that even though she submitted a detailed explanation the respondents without conducting any enquiry and without following due process, issued the impugned proceedings by terminating the petitioner from service. Now she is aged about 45 years. Recently she came to know about the notification for filling up the posts of Extension Officer (Grade-II) Supervisor and it is not known when the next notification will be given. Therefore, she stated that if she will not allow to write the examination for the said post which is scheduled to be held on 18.09.2022, she would suffer irreparable loss and hardship.

¶41

On hearing, learned Government Pleader opposed to allow the petitioner to write the said examination as she has already removed from service.

¶42

However, this Court is of the considered opinion that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, while

¶43

¶44

setting aside the impugned proceedings vide

¶45

No.01/DE02/2021, dated 01.07.2002 issued by the 3^rd respondent, the respondent authorities are directed to issue hall ticket to the petitioner allowing her to appear for the Extension Officer (Grade-II) Supervisor examination scheduled to be held on 18.09.2022.

¶46

Further, the matter is remanded to the 3^rd respondent to conduct elaborate enquiry in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47