N- APHC010324222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16177 OF 2025 Between: T Vasantha, W/o. Birru Pratap, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Angawadi Helper Jangalapalli-1, Jammalamadugu Mandal, Peddamudiam, Kadapa District. R/o. D.No.4/95, Main Road Jangalapalli Village, Jammalamadugu Mandal, Y.S.R ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of AP, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Women Development And child Welfare department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Project Director, ICDS Project, Jammalamadugu Division, Y.S.R District. 3. The District Collector, Y.S.R District, Kadapa. ...Respondents 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 to issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ /Writ(s)/direction or Order declaring the Proceedings NO.15/A/2025, DATED 18.06.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, without following due process of law and contrary to well-established legal principles, apart from being violative of my fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, set aside the same. lA 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 to suspend the Proceedings No.15/A/2025, DATED 18.06.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: APHC010324222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] r-:4j WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16177/2025 Between: 1.T VASANTHA, W/0. BIRRU PRATAP YEARS. OCC. ANGAWADI HELPER, JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, R/0. D.NO.4/95, MAIN ROAD, PEDDAMUDIAM JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. AGED ABOUT 36 JANGALAPALLI-1, JANGALAPALLI VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ICDS PROJECT, JAMMALAMADUGU DIVISION, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R DISTRICT, KADAPA. ...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 to pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate A/Vrit(s)/direction or Order declaring the Proceedings No.l5/A/2025, DATED 18.06.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, without following due process writ f 2 HCGRJ W.P. No.16177 of 2025 of law and contrary to well-established legal principles, apart from being violative of my fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, set aside the same and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Proceedings NO.15/A/2025, DATED 18.06.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: praying that in the 1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2.GP FOR SERVICES II HCGR,J W.P.No.16177 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: Petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 18.06.2025, passed by the 2'"^ respondent, removing her from the post of Anganwadi worker. Petitioner was issued show-cause notice dated 16.04.2025, based on complaint received from one Smt U.Venkata Jyothi, alleging that the petitioner had secured appointment to the post of Anganwadi Helper on the basis of a certificate claiming she had completed seventh standard, which actually was not correct. Petitioner was called upon to submit explanation. 2. Petitioner has submitted explanation dated 26.04.2025, inter alia, stating that she completed sixth class, though joined seventh class, due to family reasons, discontinued the course in middle and as there were no other applicants to the said post, she has been selected during the selection process. As the said explanation was not satisfactory, she was once again issued another show-cause notice dated 05.05.2025. Challenging the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.14737 of 2025. During the hearing of the said writ petition, this Court has sought for production of a copy of application and other documents submitted by petitioner pursuant to the notification for selection to the post of Anganwadi helper, which subsequently produced. Meanwhile, as the impugned order came to be passed, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty. were =3: t4 % HCGR.J W.P.No.l6177of2025 Heard Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for respondents. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed violating the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of complaint stated to have been submitted by one Smt U.Venkata Jyothi, based on which inquiry came to be initiated. Besides other documents were furnished to petitioner to suggest that she had claimed her educational qualification as seventh standard. In the absence of the same, the inquiry ought not to have been proceeded with. , no 5. He further submits that it was only after filing of the first writ petition that the respondents have produced a copy of application of petitioner with supporting documents. Had the said documents been furnished to her at the first instance, the petitioner would have had a fair opportunity to submit a detailed explanation to the allegations made in the show-cause notice. He would further contend that petitioner deserves fair opportunity to submit her explanation. As documents were furnished to her, explanation could not be submitted and further contends that even the impugned order does no r ■' HCGRJ W.P.No.l6177of2025 not provide specific reasons for coming to the decision of removal from service. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, submits that given fair opportunity. The first show which she submitted explanation and petitioner has been cause notice was issued, for as the same was not satisfactory, the second show-cause notice came to be issued. As no explanation came to be offered, respondents have impugned order based on material available. Therefore, the passed same cannot be found fault and urged to dismiss the writ petition. Perused the record and considered rival submissions. / . 8. The respondents have initiated inquiry based on complaint made by one Smt U.Venkata Jyothi. As the said complaint formed basis for the inquiry, it was pre-requisite that a copy of complaint be furnished to the petitioner. Though petitioner submitted explanation dated 26.04.2025, the respondents chose an to issue second show-cause notice dated 05.05.2025 without furnishing the documents, based on which the inquiry was sought to be continued. The prime allegation being that petitioner had produced documents suggesting that she passed seventh standard, such documents ought to have been provided to petitioner. At documents came to be furnished to petitioner only after any rate, those the 6 HCGRJ W.P.No.l6177of2025 petitioner approached this Court by W.P.No.14737 of 2025. Since the impugned order came to be passed without providing those documents, and a decision has been taken to remove the petitioner, this Court finds that procedure adopted is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. In view of the same, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the Writ Petition being disposed of with following 9. directions: The impugned proceedings vide Proceedings NO.15/A/2025, dated 18.06.2025, passed by the 2 respondent, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back for denovo inquiry, (b) The 2'"'^ respondent shall furnish copy of complaint made by one Smt U.Venkata Jyothi, to petitioner, within a period of one week from today. On furnishing the same, the petitioner shall submit further explanation, if any, within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter. (a) nd nd On submitting such explanation, the 2 respondent shall conclude the inquiry and pass appropriate speaking orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter. The respondents are further directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, subject to outcome of inquiry. (c) (d) 7 HCGRJ W.P.No.l6177of2025 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTER ^^tTofficer //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Women Development and child Welfare department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Project Director, ICDS Project, Jammalamadugu Division, Y.S.R District. 3. The District Collector, Y.S.R District, Kadapa. 4. One CC fa’Sfl Papudippu Sashidar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies t. u * » TF HIGH COURT DATED:02/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16177 OF 2025 X n M.m ^.Curwnl Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS