APHC010656162022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) I FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 39210 OF 2022 Between: K. Samanthaka Mani, W/o K. Bhupathi Achari, aged about 41 Anganwadi worker, R/o. D.No.7-97, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor district, Andhra Pradesh. yrs, Occ Bhadrachalam Village, Panjani Post, ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, AP Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District 3. The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) Punganur, Chittoor District. 4. The Project Director, Punganur, Chittoor District. ICDS Project, ...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 writ or order particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3 NO.09/CDOP/PUNGANUR/2022 dated 18-10-20222 rd respondent issued terminating the services of the petitioner as angawadi worker, Bhadrachalam Village, Panjani Post, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor district, as unjust, arbitrary and violation of principals of natural justice besides violation of article 14 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as angnawadi worker, Bhadrachalam Village, Panjani Post, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents not to take any permanent measures to fill the post of angnawadi worker, Bhadrachalam anagnawadi center, Bhadrachalam Village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010656162022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 39210/2022 Between; 1.K SAMANTHAKA MANI, W/0 K. BHUPATHI ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 41 YRS, OCC ANGANWADI WORKER, R/0. D.NO.7-97, BHADRACHALAM VILLAGE, PANJANI POST, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, AP SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3.THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER CDPO, ICDS PROJECT, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...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 issued writ or order particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedingsof the 3rd respondent issued NO.09/CDOP/PUNGANUR/2022 dated 18-10-20222 terminating the services of the petitioner as angawadi worker, Bhadrachalam Village, Panjani Post, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor district, as unjust, arbitrary and violation of principals of natural justice besides violation of article 14 of constitution of r- 2 India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as angnawadi worker, Bhadrachalam Village, Panjani Post, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor district, pass lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents not to take any permanent measures to fill the post of angnawadi worker, Bhadrachalam anagnawadi center, Bhadrachalam Village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant leave to the petitioner to file reply affidavit in WP No. 39210 of 2022 and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 condone the delay of126 days in representation of lA SR 14029 of 2024 and to pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 grant leave to the petitioner to file reply affidavit in WP no. 39210 of 2022 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER:- 3 Heard Sri Nuthalapaty Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development & Child Welfare appearing for the respondents. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the proceedings of the 3*^^ respondent dated 18.10.2022 in terminating the services of the petitioner 2. as Anganwadi \A/orker of Bhadrachalam Village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker on 21.08.2007 by the 3''^ respondent. The petitioner was also awarded the Best Anganwadi Teacher on 08.03.2014. The respondent issued memo dated 02.02.2022, alleging that the petitioner was found diverting and selling the food stock meant for the distribution to the anganwadi children. In response to the said memo, the petitioner has submitted her reply. The 3 respondent however has issued another memo dated 10.03.2022, alleging that the petitioner did not distribute the food meant for distribution to the beneficiaries in the village. Thereafter followed by a Show Cause Notice dated 21.03.2022, the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation within two days from the date of receipt of Show Cause Notice. To the said notice, the petitioner has submitted her explanation. However, the same was not considered and as no orders were passed pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition in W.P. No.16059 of 2022. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.07.2022, directing 3. rd 4 the 3'^^ respondent to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the show cause notice. Pursuant to the orders in the Writ Petition, impugned proceedings dated 18-10-2022, were issued by the respondents stating that, on account of the complaints received against the petitioner, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and she has submitted her explanation. After considering the petitioner's explanation, final orders were passed on 24-05-2022, terminating the petitioner from service. It is stated that, the petitioner was removed from service on 24.05.2022 even before the orders in the Writ Petition were passed 19.07.2022. The said order was sought to be served on the petitioner; however, it was returned unserved. Challenging the proceedings dated 18-10-2022, the instant Writ Petition is filed. It is further contended that the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Court while passing of the order in W.P.No. 16059 of 2022. However, pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P. No.16059 of 2022, the respondents passed the impugned order reiterating their earlier observations and further observing that the order dated 24.05.2022 remains valid and effective. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of an enquiry said to have been conducted behind the petitioner’s back, without providing an opportunity to the petitioner and without supplying a copy of the report of enquiry the petitioner directed to reply to the Show Cause Notice within two days against the allegations levelled against her. It is further argued that the order impugned 5. was 5^' 5 also does not appear to have considered the explanation given by the petitioner. It is further stated that the there should be an explicit indication in the order that the explanation was examined and considered. It is further argued that granting two days to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice would not serve the purpose of compliance with natural justice. The objective of issuing a Show Cause Notice is to enable a person accused of any wrongdoing, misconduct or corruption to submit his explanation, and the same should not remain a mere empty formality, granted just for the sake of compliance. The learned counsel thus argues that the order impugned is not sustainable since the authority had acted in arbitrary manner in granting two days time to explain all the allegations which are serious in nature. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the authority has considered the explanation of the petitioner and passed the impugned order as the allegations against the petitioner are serious. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner diverted the food meant for beneficiaries of the scheme introduced for the welfare of the and children, the respondents have rightly passed the impugned 6. women order. Considered the rival submissions. 7. It would appear from the perusal of the impugned order that explanation given by the petitioner was not considered. The consideration of the explanation would mean that the said consideration should manifest in the order passed, it also appears from the record that some material was 8. T' 6 collected, an enquiry was made, and without furnishing the same to the petitioner, she was directed to explain the allegations. It is not pointed from the record that the enquiry that was conducted after issuing notice to the notice. The matter which forms the basis for issuance of the notice, unless supplied or furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner would not be in a position to submit an effective explanation to the allegations made against her. In view of the foregoing, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order in the Writ Petition and remand the matter to the 3 respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and after supplying the material that formed the basis for issuing the Show Cause Notice. 9. rd With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. There 10. shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KjUMAR ASSISTANi;i REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FFICER ■ ^1—lA. « « Wa ■ To, Child Department of Women and 1. The Principal Secretary Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, AP Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District 3. The Child Development Project Officer(CDPO), ICDS Project, Punganur, Chittoor District. 4. The Project Director, Punganur, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] GP for Women Development and Child Welfare, High 6. Two CCs to Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. ssb •'•I HIGH COURT DATED: 18/07/2025 ORDER WP No.39210 OF 2022 ^ 3 0 JUL 2025 Secti#Qx^5^ oi «o ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS