Allowed

Preetha.P.K. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2022WP(C)/489/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by an Anganwady worker facing suspension due to alleged harassment and political pressure, the High Court of Kerala set aside the impugned suspension order, directed that the petitioner not be suspended during any future enquiry, and emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing before action.

What did the court decide?

The suspension order (Ex.P8) is set aside. The respondent authorities must give an opportunity of hearing before taking action against the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be suspended during the

Preetha.P.K. Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PREETHA.P.K. AGED 36 YEARS W/O.SUNDARAN,ANGANVADY WORKER, VALIYATHODI HOUSE, POOKOTTUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,PIN 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER MALAPPURAM,PIN 676 505.

¶12

3 THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (ICDS), MALAPPURAM ADDITIONAL ,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 676 505.

¶13

4 P.A.SALAM PRESIDENT,POOKOTTUR GRMA PANCHAYATH,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 676 517.

¶14

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶19

W.P.(C.) No. 489 of 2012

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2022

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶23

“i) Call for the entire records leading up to Exhibit P8 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;

¶24

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to continue as Anganwady Worker in Kolladimukku Anganwady in Pookottur Grama Panchayath, without any threat or intimidation from the respondent No.4 and his henchmen;

¶25

iii) Declare that Exhibit P8 order issued by the 3rd respondent is vitiated by malafides;

¶26

iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

¶27

The petitioner is an Anganwady worker. The petitioner

¶28

is working in Kolladimukku Anganwady in Pookottur Grama

¶29

WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012

¶30

¶31

Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that there was constant harassment from the 4^th respondent, the then President of the Panchayat, who is also the ward member, where the Anganwady is situated. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was several occasions during which there was misbehaviour from the side of the 4^th respondent. It is stated in the writ petition that since the petitioner was not prepared to accede the wishes of the 4^th respondent, he was on inimical terms with the petitioner. On 17.12.2011, when a meeting was convened of the Welfare Committee of the Anganwady, it is the case of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent came along with 20 other Muslim League workers and the 4^th respondent and others assaulted the petitioner and outraged her modesty in public. It is also the case of the petitioner that a criminal case is registered in connection with the same and Ext.P1 is the FIR. It is further stated in the writ petition that the 4^th respondent has made telephone calls in the odd hours of the night to the petitioner and on 29.9.2011, by around 11 pm in the night, the 4^th respondent called the petitioner in her mobile phone and invited her for a pleasure trip.

¶32

WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012 4

¶33

The petitioner refused such demand. This resulted in the 4^th respondent making Ext.P2 complaint to the 3^rd respondent against the petitioner by stating baseless allegations, it is submitted. It is also the case of the petitioner that none of the parents of the children made any complaints to the 4^th respondent and the purpose of making Ext.P2 complaint to the 3^rd respondent is only to wreck vengeance against the petitioner for her unwillingness to surrender before the 4^th respondent. Based on Ext.P2, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P3 memo to the petitioner on 3.11.2011 for which the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply. Before the 3^rd respondent, all the mothers of the children studying in Anganwady also made Ext.P5 representation supporting the petitioner. In the meanwhile, on 27.12.2011, morning at about 9.30 am, the 4^th respondent and others came to the Anganwady and it is stated that the Anganwady is forcefully closed down and even attempted to assault the petitioner and the police came and rescued the petitioner in their police jeep. Based on the said incident, the petitioner made Ext.P6 complaint to the District Collector, Malappuram and copies have been

¶34

WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012 5

¶35

given to the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram. SubInspector of Police, Manjery and the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents further stated that on the basis of Ext.P6, police protection was given for the functioning the Anganwady and the same has been functioning with the protection of the Police. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed Ext.P7 complaint to the State Women's Commission against the harassment meted out to her by the 4^th respondent. According to the petitioner, because of the above facts, 4^th respondent pressurized the 3^rd respondent using his political clout and the 3^rd respondent by Ext.P8 order suspended the petitioner on the basis of the complaint made by the 4^th respondent. Ext.P8 order is challenged in this writ petition.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his case in the writ petition. The counsel submitted that Ext.P8 suspension order was passed at the instance of the 4^th respondent because of political pressure. The counsel submitted the details of the harassment from the 4^th respondent before

¶38

WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012 6

¶39

Ext.P8 order and submitted that Ext.P8 order was passed only because of the prior complaints from the side of the petitioner towards 4^th respondent.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that an enquiry was conducted and Ext.R3(b) is the enquiry report. Based on the same, Ext.P3 is issued. The Government Pleader submitted that the authorities acted only in accordance to law.

¶41

This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 6.1.2012, this Court admitted the writ petition and stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 order. That order is in force even now. According to the petitioner, after the stay order, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner. She is working as the Anganwady worker without any objection from any side. The counsel submitted that Ext.P8 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ext.P8 order is only a suspension order. In the facts and circumstances of this case and also in the light of the fact

¶42

WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012 7

¶43

that for the last 10 years the suspension order is stayed by this Court in this writ petition, the suspension order can be set aside. But I make it clear that the respondents may proceed in accordance to law, if there is any further allegation against the petitioner and that also, only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶44

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner :

¶45

Ext.P8 order is set aside.

¶46

I make it clear that if there is any allegation against the petitioner, the respondents are free to take appropriate action in accordance to law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be suspended during the period of enquiry, if any.

¶47

The petitioner will co-operate with the enquiry if any initiated by the respondents.

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

SKS

¶50

WP(C) NO. 489 OF 2012

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 489/2012

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1007/2011 OF THE MANJERI POLICE STATION DATED 17/12/2011.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10/10/2011.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 03/11/2011.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14/11/2011 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE MOTHERS OF THE CHILDREN STUDYING IN THE ANGANWADY, WHERE THE PETITIONER IS WORKING DATED 14/11/2011.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DATED 27/12/2011.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE WOMEN'S COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS NO.ICDS/MPM(ADD)/C-3/11.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(A)	A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 10/10/2011 LODGED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE POOKKOTTUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT R3(B)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28/10/2011.

Preetha.P.K. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetha.P.K. v. the State of Kerala

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

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Additional District Magistrate

Kaikara Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedubaise K Vs Union of India

Valsamma Mathew Vs Beena

Thomas Joseph Kalassery Vs State of Kerala

Sreemathi Gopalakrishnan Vs Union of India