APHC010765012018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 36956 AND 37048 OF 2018 Writ Petition No.36956 of 2018: Between: 1. DUNGA RAMANAMMA, W/O.TEETI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC, ANGANWADI HELPER, R/O.S.C COLONY, YAMALAVARI COLONY, RAVADA PANCHAYAT, RANASTHALAM MANDAL AND POST, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN, CHILDREN, DIFFERENTLY ABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AT SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROGRAMME,OFFICE OF RANASTHALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Writ Petition No.37048 of 2018: Between: 1. ILAKALA ADILAKSHMI, W/O.MIRIYALA RAMBABU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC. ANGANWADI WORKER, R/O.S.0 COLONY, YAMALAVARI COLONY, RAVADA PANCHAYAT, RANASTHALAM MANDAL AND POST, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 532407. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN, CHILDREN, DIFFERENTLY ABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT AT 2 SRIKAKULAM. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROGRAMME, OFFICE OF RANASTHALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No.36956 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Show Cause Notice No.287/2017, dated 23.7.2018 issued by the 4th respondent whereby permanently removed the petitioner from the service as Anganwadi Helper working at Yamalavari Colony, Ravada Panchayat, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District and also to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the notification vide proceedings No.501/2018/CDPO, Ranasthalm, date 3.10.2018 inviting applications for filling the posts of Anganwadi Workers, Helpers and Mini Anganwadi Worker as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.5.2015 and consequently set-aside the impugned Show cause notice No.287/2017, dated 23.7.2018 issued by the 4th respondent.” Writ Petition No.37048 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Proceedings No.287/2017, dated 23.7.2018 issued by the 4th respondent whereby 3 permanently removed the petitioner from the service as Anganwadi Worker working at Yamalavari Colony, Ravada Panchayat, Ranasthalam Mandal, Srikakulam District and also to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the notification vide proceedings No.501/2018/CDPO, Ranasthalm, date 3.10.2018 inviting applications for filling the posts of Anganwadi Workers, Helpers and Mini Anganwadi Worker as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.5.2015 and consequently set-aside the impugned Proceedings No.287/2017, dated 23.7.2018 issued by the 4th respondent.” 2. Heard Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Respondent- Authorities, without conducting any enquiry, issued show-cause notice to them and without considering their request, terminated them from their respective posts, which is the violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petitions. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare would submit that, based on the complaints given by the stakeholders of the Anganwadi Centers several times about the dereliction of duties by the Petitioners, they were given memos, for which, they submitted their explanations accepting their lapses. Considering the said explanations, they were allowed to duty. However, they did not change their behavior and attitude. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that, finally based on the complaint given by the villagers on 05.11.2016 against the Petitioners, 4 an enquiry was conducted by the Sector Supervisor of the office of Respondent No.4 and based on said report, the Petitioners were given memos dated 10.11.2016 calling for their explanation. As the Petitioners have not submitted their explanation, and as the allegations leveled against them were proved, they were terminated from their respective posts. Learned Government Pleader would finally submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the present petitions. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, based on the complaints lodged by the stakeholders, several opportunities were given to the Petitioners to change their behavior and to mend their ways in discharging duties. However, they did not change their attitude. Again on 05.11.2016, the villagers have submitted complaints against the Petitioners stating that the Petitioners were not discharging their duties properly. Based on the marginal remarks of Respondent No.4 appended to the said complaints, Smt.L.Manohari, Sector Supervisor of the office of Respondent No.4 has conducted enquiry with the villagers and the stakeholders and has submitted her report to Respondent No.4 on 09.11.2016 stating that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners were proved. Based on the enquiry report dated 09.11.2016, Respondent No.4 has issued a memo to the Petitioners on 10.11.2016 calling for explanation. However, the Petitioners have not submitted their explanation. 5 Since the posts of the Petitioners are honorary posts, as per the procedure, disciplinary action was initiated against the Petitioners and show-cause notices were also given to them. Having not satisfied with the explanation given by them, they were terminated from the services vide Proceedings No.287/2017 dated 23.07.2018. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that Respondent No.4 has strictly followed the procedure laid down and as ordered by the District Level Committee, terminated the Petitioners from their services. As such, these are not the cases of violation of principles of natural justice. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the view that, impugned orders of termination of the Petitioners from their respective posts, does not brook any interference of this Court. The petitions lack merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:25.04.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 36956 AND 37048 OF 2018 Dt.25.04.2025 Dinesh