• V ■ ■? N N. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23504 OF 9091 Between: 1. M Rama Devi. W/o Satish, aged about 35 years. Occ. Aganwadi Worker, Chintapallypadu (Mam center), Vattichrukuru Mandal, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. Development and Child Welfare, (ICDS Project), Guntur District. ^ Pr(^e^t°^Guntuir^^^°'^’ Women and Child Development Authority, ICDS DiSri^fDevelopment Project Director, ICDS Project, Prattipadu. Guntur ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner from service without conducting opportunity to the petitioner vide for No.37/C.D.P.0/2021 dt. 01-06-2021 of the may be any proper enquiry or giving any impugned proceeding in Rc. respondent issuing the termination orders of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker Code No.0718121 Chinthapaliipadu Village, Vattichrukuru Mandal, Guntur District of and pursuant to the orders of the 3^^ respondent in Rc.No.224/A2/2021, dt.28.05.2021 of the 2"'^ respondent as communicated in Rc.No.224/A2/2021, dt.31.05.2021 of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary unjust, violative of principal of natural justice and opposed to principal of natural justice set aside the direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Anganwadi worker and grant all consequential benefits arising there from and same and consequently pass 4 < lA NO: 1 OF 2021 i * Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court in may be pleased to suspend the orders of the respondent proceeding in Rc. No.37/C.D.P.0/2021 dt.01-06- 2021 of the 4th respondent issuing the termination orders of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker, Code No.0718121 of Chinthapallipadu Vattichrukuru Mandal, Guntur District and Village, pursuant to the orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.224/A2/2021, dt.28.05.2021 nd of the 2 communicated in Rc.No.224/A2/2021, dt.31.05.2021 of the 3^^' pass respondent as respondent and Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. G V L MURHTY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following ORDER : 1 APHC010382732021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23504/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER M Rama Devi AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GVLMURHTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief; “ to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the petitioner from service without conducting any proper enquiry or giving any opportunity to the petitioner vide for impugned proceeding in Rc No 37/C D P 0/2021 dt 01.06.2021 of the 4th respondent issuing the termination orders of the petitioner as Anganwaai Worker Code No 0718121 of Chinthapallipadu Village Vattichrukuru Mandal Guntur District and pursuant to the orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc No 224/A2/2021 dt 28.05.2021 of the 2nd respondent as communicated in Rc No 224/A2/2021 dt 31.05. 2021 of the 3rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary unjust violative of principal of natural justice and opposed to principal of natural justice set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Anganwadi worker and grant all consequential benefits arising there from and pass ” The grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Aganwadi worker in the year 2006 and ever since she is discharging his duties 2. 2 Without any remark. While she was working at Chintapallipadu village villagers have made a complaint against the petitioner that she and diverting essential commodities and the the was misusing same were unloaded at one place i.e., to the house of E Sivaleela, W/o Sambasiva Rao. Accordingly, a surprise check was conducted on 27.10.2020 by the CDPO and During their surprise visit, they found certain irregularities, same, a show cause notice was issued by the 3'"^ supervisor. Basing on the respondent vide proceedings No.1/C.D.P.O/2020, dated 28.10,2C20 calling for explanation from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the respondent to supply the copies of the complaints said to have been received by the 4 respondent to give a proper and detailed explanation. But without giving any opportunity or without conducting proper enquiry, the 4*" respondent has issued the impugned proceedings vide Rc No.37/CDPO/2021, dated 01.06.2021 terminating the petitioner from the service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the petitioner did not perform her duties properly and diverted the supplementary food without distributing to the Actual beneficiaries. Hence show nutrition cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 5.2.2021.As contended by the petitioner that without considering the explanation and without furnishing any documents which supported the alleged charges, is totally incorrect. In fact, the petitioner 3 has taken all documents regarding the complaints, it is further statedthat the petitioner has attended to the Anganwadi worker duties from Guntur to Chintapallipadu, Vatticherukuru Mandal. Hence the then Child Development Project Officer has given a Memo to the petitioner on 17.1.2018 and hence the petitioner has resigned to her job on 6.6.2018 on the ground of ill health. Further, the petitioner made a representation dated 25.6.2018 addressed to the Project Director, DW&CDA, Guntur with a request to withdraw her resignation. In pursuance of the same, the Project Director, Guntur has given instructions to CDPO to consider her request and join her as Anganwadi worker, and also stating that, if the same may be repeated in future, action will be initiated against the Anganwadi worker. Accordingly, the Project Director, has given opportunity to the petitioner but the petitioner has not performedher duties as Anganwadi worker. Therefore, after conducting enquiry by the 4 th respondent and vide G.O.Ms.No.42 WD&CW & ICDS Department, dated 21.11.2008 the District Selection Committee of Anganwadi Worker & th Anganwadi Helper has issued orders.In view of the above orders, the 4 respondent has terminated the petitioner and issued proceedings. Therefore, the termination of the petitioner is not illegal and arbitrary and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri G.V. L. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Dev. Child Welfare appearing for the respondents. 4 r1 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation, but the 4*Vespondent without giving any opportunity and without conducting proper enquiry, passed the impugned order, which is highly illegal and arbitrary, requests this Court to issue a direction to the 4*^espondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, learned counsel 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others ^ regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Articie 226 of the Constitution is plenary In nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition. Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 5 fK 8. The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the material available on record, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in this wht petition and also inclined to remand back the matter to the respondent authorities concerned for proper appreciation. Rc.No.37/ 10. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings in C.P.D.O/2021, dated 01.06.2021 issued by the 4*^espondent are herebyset aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 4*^respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand 11. closed. Sd/- U.SRI DEVI ASSISTANT pciSTRAR i6n / //TRUE COPY// To, SECTI _ of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Chairman/District Collector, Women (ICDS Project), Guntur District. 3. The Project Director, District Women and Child Project, Guntur. OFFICER Development and Child Welfare, Development Authority, ICDS DlSrtot''“ Development Project Director, ICDS Project, Prattipadu , Guntur 5. One CC to SRI. G V L MURHTY Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7, Three CD Copies / High Court Of PMT WNS - SECTION / I HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.23504 of 2021 g 10 FEB 2025 & ^ * Currant Section . DISPOSSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS