Allowed

Smt. Shahnaz Bhanu, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Dec 2023WP/40316/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a Writ Petition challenging a termination order passed against an Anganwadi worker. The Court held that termination without conducting a domestic inquiry and without considering the petitioner's categorical explanation violates principles of natural justice as per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned termination order dated 25.03.2015 is set aside, and the petitioner is directed to continue services as an Anganwadi worker at NGO's Colony-II Centre, Kosini Gram Panchayat, Kaghaznagar M

Smt. Shahnaz Bhanu, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

SATURDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WR]T PETITION NO: 40316 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Shahnaz Bhanu,, W/o Mohd. Shabbir, aoe about 37 years Occ Anganwadi Worker Fi./o NGOs Colony, Kaghaznaga'r Adilaba d District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare department, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The District Collector& Chairman,, Women and Child Development Agency Adilabad, Adilabad Diskict.

¶13

Ilg^{Proiec! Directo(,DistrictWomen and Child DevelopmentAgency} Adilabad, Adilabad District

¶14

The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS, Kaghaznagar (Urban), Adilabad District.

¶15

...RESPONOENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Pro. No. A.117112015 Dated 25-3-20'15 terminating the services of petitioner without proper enquiry and valid reasons as illegal, un;ust. null and void and also against the principles of natural justice and set aside the termination orders issued by the 2nd respondent dated. 25-3-2015 by directing the resporrdents to continue the petitioner as Anganwadi worker at N.G.O s Colony-ll, l(osini Gram Panchayat, Kaghaznagar Mandal

¶17

LA-No!1qE20't5[\4LP!4P. NO: 52038 oF^201s]

¶18

Petition under Section^'t 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To grant interim suspension of Proceedings. No. A117112015 Dated 25-3-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as

¶19

Anganwadi worker at N.G.O.s Colony -ll, Kosini Gram Panchayat, Kaghaznagar Mandal pending finalization of the above writ petition in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S SURENDER REODY

¶20

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: cP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶21

Coumel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT & CHILD WELFARE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.4O31 6 of2O15

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is frled seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the second respondent vide proceedings No.A/ 17 I /20 15, dated 25.03.20 15, terminating the se rvices of the petitioner without proper enquiry and valid reasons, as illegal, unjust, null and void and also against the principles of natural jusrice and consequently to set aside the termination order dated 25.03.2O l5 ancl continue the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker ztt NC}O,s Colonr II. Kosini Gram Panchayat, Kagt,aznagar Mandal.

¶28

Heard Sri S. Surrender Reddy, learned counscl for the pctitioner, the learned Government pleader for Soci:rl Wclfarc ior respondent No. 1, and the learned Government pleader lor Wome n and Child Development for respondents 2 to 4.

¶29

3l lt has been contended by the learncd collns(.I li)r rh(, pcrrtr()n(.r that the pctitioner was appointed as Ang:rnu.adr Worke r rtrle procccdings No.E/445/2OO7 dated 3l.l2.2OOZ arrrl posrccl ar NGOs Cokrnr" II, Kosini Gram Panchayat, Kagaznag:tr. 'l'hcrealler, l'rom [)((:crnber, 2O14, onwards she was plarccrl Irr cltargc ol ICDS, Burudaguda Village, Kosini Gram panchavat Whilc so, olr 31 Ot.20l5, as therc 'r\ras no stock of rice :rn<i balirnrrlrth:rm in NO(),s Crl,rr'II cenLre. a.d as respondcnt No,3 r t l)rr1r.r.i [)rrt.r.tt)r. \,:rs o.

¶30

PK. J wP 403I6 2015

¶31

¶32

Ieave on the said date, in usual practice, she informed in^{writing to} one Shakunthala, who was working as Aaya, and after^obtaining permission from the villagers, she has taken one rice bag of 50 kgs and two Balamrutham bags on loan basis from ICDS,^Burudaguda centre to NGO's Colony- centre for distributing the^{sameto the} beneficiaries. To that effect, the^petitioner has also^{endorsedin the} food records and the same was also acknowledged by the Aaya and subsequentll, the same was also informed to respondent^No.3. However, the respondent No.2 has issued the show^{cause notice dated} lI.O2.2O15 alleging that the petitioner was caught hold^while transporting onr: rice bag of 50 kgs and two balamrutham^{bags from} ICDS, Burudaguda centre, illegally and sought explanation,^{for which,} the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 19.O2.2O 15.^Learned counsel has further contended that the impugned termination^order was passed \'ithout conducting enquiry and without considering thc explanation submitted by' the petitioner. Therefore, the^impugnecl termination ordcr is passed in violation of the^principles of^natural justicc ancl ttrcrcforc przrl'cci this Court to pass appropriate orders irr the Writ Pctition. In support of his submissions, the^{learned counscl} has rclrcd on N. Padrnakumari u. Sta.te oJ Andhra^Pradeshl.

¶33

4l Per contr:r, thc lcarned Government Pleader has contetrdcd^thar as the petitioncr \'as caught hold while transporting one rice^{bag of}

¶34

i 202.3 (-21 Al-D ,i-16 r\1',)

PK,.' wP 40316 2015

50 kgs and 2 sattu (balamrutham) bags, belonging to Burudaguda Angandwadi Centre, a show cause notice was issued to her calling for an explanation. As the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, her services were terminated uide impugned order, in accordance with the Rules in vogue. Therefore, the respondents are justified in terminating the services of the petitioner and prayed this Court ro dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶39

5l This Court has taken note of the submissions made bv the respcctive counsel

¶40

As can be seen from the record, admittedly, the petitioner has becn norking as Anganwadi Worker in NGO's Colony-ll since 2007 rvitl-rout any' remarks. [n the explanation dated 19.O2.2O l5 submitted b-u- the petitioner to the show cause notice dated I l.02.2O I 5 issued by the sccond respondent., she has categorically staled as unclcr:

¶41

I submit that, there was no stock of Rice and Balarrrrutham irr N G O s colonv II Centre on 31.01.2015. On the said date thc Cl)l']O, ICI)S. Kaghaznagar (U) is on leave, so I made a phone calls to The SuPen'rsor, lCt)S. Kaghaznagar (U) her mobile phone is not reachablc, as strch our prat{rce artd taken the written permission from viz., Shakuntala *lro rs \rorkrnq as School Aaya and also taken the oral permissiorr lrorn the Vrllagcrs ol l]urudaguda. After taken the permission lrom Lll( attore sarcl Jx'Tsor1s.^{IIrave takcntheRice and Balamrutham on loanbasrsliorrr} I C.t).S., 13urudaguda centre to N.G.O's Cotony-ll centrc to drs(r rl)LtLC or si(l lo the bencllciarres, and also I have clearly mentioned in l.'oo<l rccortls;rs .,\I'I'1,(;A I]URUDAGUt)tJM NUNDI 1 RICE BAG 2 I]ALAN,lRU1'II.\1 IJACS" .rt(l the sir(l Strakuntala, School Aaya has also acknorr lcclqt,rl rltr. s.rmc

¶42

PK, J wP 40316 2015

¶43

¶44

7l Without considering the categorical assertions made by the petitioner, referred to above, the second respondent has straight away passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner, without conducting any enquiry. It is well settled that for imposition of a major penalty, mandatorily, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuluant Stngh Gill u. Stdte of PunjaV. Admittedly, in the^present case,^the respondents have failed to follon, the mandatory^{procedureprior to} passing the impugned termination order.

¶45

That apart, the contents of the impugned termination order further discloses that the termination of the petitioner is stigmatic in nature, for whicl'r also, a regular enquiry is mandatory as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pa vo,nendra Nardgan Venna a. Saniag Gandhi PGI of Medica I Sciences3.

¶46

For the alore mcntioned reasons, the impugned termination order dated 25-03.20 l5 passed b,r, the second respondent is set aside and the respondcnts arc directcd to continue the services of the petitioner as Anganu:rcli Worker ::r t NGO's Colony-ll Centre, Kosini Gram Panchal'at. Kerghaznagar Mandal, however, without any back wages.

¶47