APHC010047452011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5767/2011 Between: 1. ABOTHULA VARALAKSHMI, W/O. RAMA RAO ANGANAWADI WORKER P.K. PALAVALASA VILLAGE, CHEEPURAPALLI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN CHILD DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, VIZIANAGARAM 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHAIRMAN, ANGANAWADI WORKER SELECTION COMMITTEE, VIZIANAGARAM 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT, CHEEPURAPALLI, VIZIANAGARAM 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 to issue any writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating my services is arbitrary, illegal and violative of articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India besides violation of Principles of Natural Justice and set aside the impugned Procgs Memo.No.494 -Ter/10A/ dt.31.1.2011 of the 1st respondent and consequential proceedings Lr.No.1/2010, dt.2.2.2011 of the 3rd respondent herein with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WVMP 2261 OF 2011 2 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 vacate the interim orders dt.08.03.2011, passed in WP No. 5767 of 2011 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2011(WPMP 7174 OF 2011 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by suspending the impugned Procgs Memo No. 494 - Ter / 10 A / dt.31.1.2011 of the respondent and consequential herein in the ends of justice and pass IA NO: 5 OF 2011(WVMP 82890 OF 2011 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B M PATRO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri B.M.Patro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.Kanakaraju, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for the respondents. 2. Impugning the proceedings vide Memo No.494-Ter/10/A dated 31.01.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings vide Lr.No.1/2010 dated 02.02.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker, P.K.Palavalasa Village, Cheepurapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District, the above writ petition was filed. 3. An interim order was granted on 08.03.2011 directing continuation of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker initially for a period of six weeks. 3 Thereafter, it was extended from time to time and finally extended until further orders by proceedings dated April 26, 2011. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 15.08.2002 at P.K.Palavalasa Village. She has been discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction and appreciation of the villagers and officials without any stigma. The 3rd respondent issued Memo No. 1/2010 dated 24.08.2010, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation/reply dated 30.09.2010. Another memo was issued on 18.09.2010, and the petitioner submitted an explanation. 5. The villagers of P.K.Palavalasa Village submitted a complaint dated 15.09.2010 to the Project Director regarding the misuse of the stocks and maintenance of false records. The Project Director, in turn, vide a memo dated 21.09.2010 directed the 3rd respondent to submit remarks. Consequently, the 3rd respondent issued a memo dated 25.09.2010 to the petitioner calling for her explanation, and the petitioner submitted the explanation on 25.10.2010. 6. The MPTC and other beneficiaries also made a complaint to the 3rd respondent on 15.12.2010, stating that the petitioner was neither attending to duties nor distributing the food items properly. A note was submitted to the District Collector on 22.01.2011 for taking necessary action against the petitioner. After obtaining approval from the District Collector and receipt of the Memo No.494-Ter/10/A dated 31.11.2011 from the Project Director, the 3rd respondent, by Proc.No.1/2010 dated 02.02.2011, terminated the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Worker. 7. The petitioner requested to furnish a copy of the memo dated 31.01.2011. However, the same was not furnished. The petitioner then made an application under the Right to Information Act, and thereafter, the 3rd respondent served the memo dated 31.01.2011 upon her. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner’s services were terminated without affording her a reasonable opportunity of 4 hearing. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that pursuant to the interim order dated 08.03.2011, the petitioner was reinstated and has been discharging her duties without any complaint from any quarter to date. 10. Sri U.Kanakaraju, learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that before terminating the petitioner, three memos were issued to her, but she did not furnish proper explanations. Thereafter, upon obtaining approval of the District Collector and receipt of a memo dated 31.01.2011 from the Project Director, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 02.02.2011 terminating her services. 11. Point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 31.01.2011 and the consequential proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 02.02.2011 terminating the petitioner's services as Anganwadi Worker, P.K.Palavalasa Village, are legally sustainable? 12. As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner's appointment as Anganwadi Worker on 15.08.2022 at P.K.Palavalasa Anganwadi Centre. It is also borne out from the record that three memos were issued, and the petitioner submitted explanations to each of them. 13. A perusal of the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 31.01.2011 reveals that it neither indicates the issuance of any show cause notice nor reference to any explanation from the petitioner regarding the alleged irregularities committed by her while discharging duties as Anganwadi Worker. The proceedings merely refer to the circular memo dated 09.02.1994 issued by the Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad, proceedings vide Rc.No.01/2010 dated 22.01.2011 of the CDPO ICDS 5 Cheepurupalli and the note file approved by the Collector and Chairman AWW/AWH Selection committee Vizianagaram dated 30.01.2011. 14. As pointed out supra, the proceedings neither indicate any show cause notice nor any explanation from the petitioner. The proceedings also do not indicate any reasons regarding the termination of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker. They also do not indicate compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice. 15. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 16. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers2 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. 17. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai3 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same, it becomes lifeless. 18. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. Memo No.494-Ter/10/A dated 31.01.2011and the consequential proceedings vide Lr.No.1/2010 dated 02.02.2021 are hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner if she commits any irregularities while discharging her duties, in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 (2010) 9 SCC 496 2 (2010) 4 SCC 785 3 (2008) 15 SCC 711 6 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated: 21.11.2025 SNI 7 203 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5767/2011 Dated: 21.11.2025 SNI