APHC010567792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 29591/2025 Between: 1. SAVITI BRAHMA MANI, W/O. TALARI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 2-70, TURUPU PAKALU VILLAGE TAMARADA POST, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 3. THE DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE AGENCY, D.NO.8-13-15, NEAR RED CROSS BLOOD BANK, INDRAPALEM POLICE ROAD, PENUMUDI VARI STREET, GANDHINAGAR KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, I.C.D.S. PROJECT, PEDDAPURAM, HANUMAN TEMPLE ROAD, G. RAGAMPETA, PEDDAPURAM,KAKINADA DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in conducting biased enquiry against the Petitioner without considering the documents available on record and without issuing the said enquiry report to the Petitioner, directly issuing impugned Removal Order vide NO.30/A/2025 dated 16.10.2025 by completely removing the Petitioner from her post of Anganwadi Worker by the Respondent No.5 as totally illegal. arbitrary, unjust, untenable under law and in violation of Petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Removal Order vide NO.30/A/2025 dated 16.10.2025 issued by the Respondent No.5 and further direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner back into service as 2 Anganwadi Worker by granting all attending benefits calculated from the date of suspension till date and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to pass an interim order by suspending the impugned Removal Order vide NO.30/A/2025 dated 16.10.2025 issued by the Respondent No.5, until disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to pass an interim order by directing the Respondents not to fill up the said post Anganwadi Worker in Turupu Pakalu Anganwadi Centre, Turupu Pakalu Village, Peddapuram Mandal, Kakinada District, until disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to receive the reply counter on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.29591 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2025, whereby the petitioner was removed from services of Anganwadi worker. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second round of litigation for the petitioner. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had challenged the unilateral order of termination dated 22.09.2022. The learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, in W.P. No. 38554 of 2022, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the said order of termination dated 22.09.2022 and further directed the respondents to pass fresh orders within a period of six months.The petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service without back pages while the order dated 28.03.2025. It is submitted that the respondents are under the pressure to ensure that the petitioner is removed from service in pursuance of the same the respondents have now issued the impugned proceedings dated 16.10.2025 under the guise of conducting an inquiry. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have relied upon the enquiry report dated 23.12.2021, which was also considered by this Hon’ble Court in the earlier round of litigation. The respondents, in their counter, have referred to the statements of the beneficiaries recorded during the initial enquiry. It is submitted that the said enquiry report was never furnished to the petitioner. This court by an order dated 29.10.2025, recorded the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, who sought time to produce proof of 4 service of the enquiry report upon the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order of removal. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the respondent authority has conducted an enquiry and found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. It is submitted that in pursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.38554 of 2022, fresh orders dated 16.10.2025 have been passed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the state. Perused the material on record. 6. The impugned proceedings dated 16.10.2025 do not refer to any enquiry, much less the enquiry report dated 23.12.2021. The respondents have issued the impugned proceedings without conducting any enquiry and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner failed to perform the duties assigned as an Anganwadi Worker on 16.12.2021 and during the COVID pandemic period. Though it is stated that the District Collector and Magistrate conducted an enquiry and that the impugned proceedings were passed pursuant thereto, the petitioner was neither permitted to participate in the enquiry nor afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Further, while statements of certain witnesses were recorded in the year 2021, the District Collector, in the subsequent enquiry, did not record 5 the statements of those very witnesses, but instead relied upon statements of their family members. 7. Be that as it may, the enquiry report dated 25.09.2025 has also not been furnished to the petitioner. The manner in which the respondents have passed the initial order of termination dated 22.09.2022 as well as the subsequent proceedings dated 16.10.2025 clearly indicates that they are hellbent on terminating the services of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on the following grounds. a. The enquiry was not conducted in the manner prescribed under law and no opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witnesses was offered to the petitioner. b. The principles of natural justice were not followed while conducting the inquiry and in the preparation of enquiry report. c. The enquiry report forming the basis of the initial order of termination dated 22.09.2022, as well as the subsequent enquiry report dated 25.09.2025, were not furnished to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the irrational acts of the respondents are hereby set aside. The impugned proceedings dated 16.10.2025 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 6 127 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.29591 OF 2025 Dated 04.05.2026 KGM