Partly allowed

Smt.T.Y.Varajakshi W/O Hanumanthappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2023WP/105964/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Anganwadi workers challenged termination orders based on alleged misconduct and admitted guilt. The Court held that termination without a formal inquiry violating natural justice was unsustainable and set aside the impugned orders, remanding the matter for appropriate proceedings. Part of the petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination orders dated 08.01.2019 quashed. Matter remanded to 2nd respondent to initiate proceedings. Consequential relief not dependent on enquiry.

Smt.T.Y.Varajakshi W/O Hanumanthappa Vs the Deputy… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9998 WP No. 105964 of 2019 C/W WP No. 113209 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105964 OF 2019 (S-DIS) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 113209 OF 2019 (S-DIS)

¶8

IN W.P. NO. 105964 OF 2019: BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. T.Y.VARAJAKSHI W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: ANGANAVADI WORKER (KARYAKARTHE), IN BOMMALAGUNDA VILLAGE, R/O BOMMALAGUNDA VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583213.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALALRI DISTRICT, BALLARI.

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2023.09.20 11:47:29 +0530

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CHILD & WOMAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BALLARI, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SANDURU, SANDURU TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583213.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN UNIBA/MAMAAAE/ ICD/AMKAKA/SA/MANYATHA/RADDU/2018-19/4611 DATED 08.01.2019 I.E., MARKED AS ANNEXURE-"E" SO FAR IS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9998 WP No. 105964 of 2019 C/W WP No. 113209 of 2019

¶22

IN W.P. NO. 113209 OF 2019: BETWEEN:

¶23

SMT. LAKSHMI D/O DURUGAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: ANGANAVADI HELPER IN BOMMALAGUNDA VILLAGE, R/O: BOMMALAGUNDA VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583213.

¶24

… PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .G. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.

¶28

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CHILD & WOMAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BALLARI, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.

¶29

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SANDURU, SANDURU TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583213.

¶30

… RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R3)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN UNIBA/MAMAAAE/ICD/ AMKAKA/SA/MANYATHA/RADDU/2018-19/993 DATED 08.01.2019 I.E., MARKED AS ANNEXURE-"G" AND ETC.

¶33

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9998 WP No. 105964 of 2019 C/W WP No. 113209 of 2019

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the order dated 08.01.2019, by which the service of the petitioners as Anganwadi Workers at Bommalagunda village, Sanduru taluk, Ballari district, are terminated, and have sought a consequential relief, of reinstatement, into service by issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus.

¶38

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Manjunatha G.

¶39

Patil appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGA Sri. Madanmohan M. Khannur appearing for the respondents.

¶40

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows.:

¶41

Pursuant to a selection process instituted by the respondent-State, the petitioner in Writ petition No.105964/2019 is appointed as Anganwadi worker on 27.12.2011 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.113209/2019 is appointed in the year 2019. It transpires that on a particular date when the Child Development Project Officer visits the Anganwadi Kendra, the food to be served to the children was not yet ready. On that score that the food

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9998 WP No. 105964 of 2019 C/W WP No. 113209 of 2019

¶44

to the children was not yet ready, and the documents were not properly maintained at the Anganwadi Kendra, a show cause notices come to be issued against petitioners on 11.06.2018 and on 10.7.2018, respectively seeking to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioners. The petitioners submit their explanation on 16.07.2018 and 17.07.2018, respectively. Notwithstanding the explanation, it transpires that the petitioners gave in writing, that they would not commit such a mistake again, and on the score that, the petitioners admit the guilt are now terminated from service. The termination of which is called in question in the subject petitions.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been terminated without conduct of any inquiry, as the show cause notice led to the petitioners submitting a reply and the reply led to passing of the impugned order. Therefore, it is a case where the employees of the Anganwadi Kendra are terminated without conduct of any inquiry or initiating any proceedings in accordance with law.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9998 WP No. 105964 of 2019 C/W WP No. 113209 of 2019

¶48

The learned Additional Government Advocate, on

¶49

the other hand, would submit that the petitioners have admitted their guilt, and therefore no enquiry is conducted, as no enquiry was necessary to be conducted in the light of such admission.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioners would join issue to contend that they were asked to sign on a blank paper, and the alleged admission is then scribed by someone else and this has led to termination of the petitioners, the petitioners have also filed an affidavit to that effect.

¶51

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶52

The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. What has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions, is their termination from the service. The petitioners join the services as an Angadwadi worker, pursuant to a selection process instituted on 27.12.2011. After about 7 years of their service in Anandwadi Kendra, at Bommalagunda village,

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9998 WP No. 105964 of 2019 C/W WP No. 113209 of 2019

¶55

Sanduru taluk, an inspection by the Inspector of Child Development Project Officer, happens and during the said date of inspection, i.e. on 11.06.2018 it was found that the petitioner-Smt. Varajakshi had not maintained certain records and the food to be served to the children was not ready, and on 10.07.2018, it was found the petitionerSmt.Lakshmi had attended the Anganwadi Kendra consuming alcohol. On this omission/act of the petitioners, show cause notices come to be issued which was replied by the petitioners on 16.07.2018 and 17.07.2018. The reply result in the impugned orders.

¶56

The foundation for the impugned orders is the, so called admission of guilt of the petitioners. The admission of guilt by the petitioners has led to the termination. The petitioners have been asked to sign on a paper, accepting misconduct without knowing the consequences of such acceptance of the guilt.

¶57

The State on the basis of the acceptance of the

¶58

guilt has terminated the service of the petitioners by the orders impugned. The order that terminates the petitioners is

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC-D:9998 WP No. 105964 of 2019 C/W WP No. 113209 of 2019

¶61

not preceded by any inquiry or proceedings in a manner known to law in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to set aside the same and remand the matter back to the Competent Authority to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶62

For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. The petitions are allowed in part.

¶65

ii. The impugned orders dated 08.01.2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent are quashed.

¶66

iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 2^nd respondent to initiate proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶67

iv. All consequential benefits that would flow from the

¶68

quashment of the order won’t depend on the enquiry to be conducted as directed.

¶69

Kmv ct:bck

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

Smt.T.Y.Varajakshi W/O Hanumanthappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.T.Y.Varajakshi W/O Hanumanthappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt Deepali Lengade Vs Sri Sandeep Lengade

Mr Alok Kumar Vs Mr Mallikarjun B M @ Ravi

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs Canara Bank

Shri.Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Lakshmi D/O Durugappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Shankar S/O Veerappa Shimpi Vs the Principal Secretary to