IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5128 OF 2020 Between: Nuka Padma Kumari, W/o S. Nageshawara Rao, Aged about 35 years, Occ; Anganwadi Worker, Mathalabupeta, Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Siddhantham Post, Srikakulam District, A P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director of Women and Child Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Jampani Towers, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Selection Committee of Anganwadi Workers, Srikakulam, Rep. by its Chairman and District Collector. 4. The Project Director, ICDC Project, Srikakulam. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 pass an order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5*^ respondent in issued the Removal/terminating her services of the petitioner vide impugned Proceedings in Rc. No. 137/2019, dated 10-02-2020 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust. Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, set-aside the same and consequently direct the r respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi ' worker Mathalabupeta Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Siddhantham post, Srikakulam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 5*" respondent to continue the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker by suspending the operation of the vide impugned Proceedings in Rc.No. 137/2019, dated 10-02-2020 pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010081122020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5128/2020 Between: Nuka Padma Kumari ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...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: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi a for the following relief: “ to issue an order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in issued the Removal/terminating her services of the petitioner vide impugned Proceedings in Rc No 137/2019 dated 10.02.2020, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust. Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India set aside the same and consequently direct the 5th respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker Mathalabupeta Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Siddhantham post, Srikakulam District, and pass " '\1 2. Brief facts of the Community. Initially she 2002 and since then she is discharging her duties Whatsoever. At the time of case are that the petitioner belongs was appointed as an Anganwadi worker to BC on 15-08- without any complaint appointment, she had passed 10th Class during passed Degree in the year 2005. It is the year 1999 subsequently she had further stated that the 5‘Vespondent i Rc. No. 137/2019, dated 10-02-2020 the 4“’ respondent is the competent authority to i issued the impugned removal/termination without assigning any reasons. In fact, issue proceedings or any other letters etc. But, though the 5*^ jurisdiction, he has issued the respondent has no power or any proceedings. As per G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 03.11.2008 the competent authority is 02.12.2004 and G.O.Ms.No.38 dated the 4* respondent, but without conducting simpiy issued the impugned proceedings. Questioning the same the or verifying rules,the S'" respondent present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed all the allegations made in the petition, stated that 4*^" respondent. While denying on a complaint received , Srikakulam District, the from the villagers of Matalabupeta, Sarubujjili Mandal CDPO, ICDS Project, Amadalavalasa along with the Sector Supervisor concerned have visited the village on 11.11.2019, to enquire into the of the complaint. The Writ Petitioner herein contents has left the A.W.Centre and away while the enquiry against her is going on which is highly objectionable. After that. Police Authorities of Sarubujjili Police Station on 09.12.2019 have arrested her and boolcel’ went a Criminal Case vide Cr.No. 137/2019 3 % U/s.326,323,506 r/w 34 IPC due to the reason that she quarreled with the parents of beneficiaries and also wounded them by using strong wooden sticks and made injuries to the parents of the beneficiaries at the A.W.Centre, Matalabupeta Village, Sarubujili Mandal, Srikakulam District, Further, she was kept in remand on 09.02.2019 from 7 pm to early morning on 9 am of the next day in Sarubujili Police Station and taken away to trail at 1" Class Judicial Magistrate Court at Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. It is further stated that as per the guidelines issued by the Director, Women Development & Child Welfare Dept., Govt., of A.P., Hyderabad in Circular Memo.No.11645/K2/96, dt.14.03.97, the Writ Petitioner herein was terminated by the Selection Committee under the orders of Chairman & District Collector, Srikakulam communicated in Progs.Rc.No.137/2019 dt.10.02.2020 of the CDPO, ICDS Project, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District due to the above findings, such as (i).that she absconded from duties, (ii). that she mis-utilized the nutritious food and (iii).that she was remanded in Police Station, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam Dist. It is further stated that the District Selection Committee, Srikakulam after considering the above facts in the light rules and have approved the termination of the Writ Petitioner herein from the post of AW Worker, Matalabupeta Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakuilam Dist. In of the circumstances stated above, the Writ Petition deserves no view consideration and liable for dismissal on devoid of merits. f 4 Sr 4. Heard Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Dev. Child Welfare appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, the impugned order passed by the 5*Vespondent is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and against the In fact the 3'"^ and 4*^ respondents without consent, directly issued the impugned order against the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that, earlier a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide No. 137/2019, dated 12.11.2019 from Child Development Scheme Officer, Amadalavalasa. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and the same was received by the office on 26.11.2019. But without considering the explanation, the respondent has issued the present impugned order, terminating the petitioner, is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. principles of natural justice. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter, submits that, it is true that the petitioner has submitted her explanation dated 26.11.2019 stating that at the time of visit of the A.W center on 11.11.2019 b the CDPO, ICDS Project, Amadalavalasa, along with the Sector Supervisor, she attend to the duty of division of voters selection-wise as a part of duty as BLO and one Sanapala Tavitayya forcibly entered into A.W Centre and locked it and she ran 5 Therefore, though her explanation is not convincing again the 5 away, respondent has visited the A.W. Centre, Matalabupeta by the time, the A.W. In view of the above facts, the 5 th worker was absconded from duty, respondent has issued the impugned order in the light of the rules. Therefore learned Government Pleader prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the material on record. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 8. and others 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 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 itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and has imposed upon efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its junsdiction. 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 junsdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). 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 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 6 case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in this writ petition and also inclined to remand back the matter to the respondent authorities concerned for proper appreciation, while declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.137/2019, dated 10.02.2020 issued by the S'^'respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No. 137/2019, dated 10.02.2020 issued by the S^^respondent is hereby set aside. 10. Further, the matter is remanded back to the concerned respondent authorities to consider the explanation dated 26.11.2019 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate fresh reasoned orders, after affording an, opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director of Women and Child Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Jampani Towers, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Chairman and District Collector, District Selection Committee of Anganwadi Workers, Srikakulam. 4. The Project Director, ICDC Project, Srikakulam. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. 6. One CC to Sri Krishna Rao Modhalavalasa, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP for Women Development and Child Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb ^4 HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER S •' mar 2125 n Current Section H£g»PATCWta^ WP.No.5128 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS