1 APHC010135752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 7041/2025 Between: 1. B.CHINNAMMAI,, W/O. AYYAVARLU, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC- ANGANWADI WORKER R/O. PEDDAKANDLAGUNTA VILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMCHAIRMAN, ANGANWADI DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME PROJECT, KONDEPI, 2 PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT, KONDEPI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.7041 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 03.03.2025 passed by the 4th respondent, wherein the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the impugned orders are contrary to the record. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker on 16.11.2008 and on 20.06.2024, the respondents surprisingly issued a show- cause notice to her calling for an explanation. Thereafter, they have issued three notices and the petitioner has submitted explanations to the same. However, surprisingly, in the impugned orders, there is no reference with regard to the explanations submitted by the petitioner. It is further contended that the very basis for removal from service is the report submitted by the 5th respondent. However, the respondents have 4 admitted that such enquiry report has not been furnished to the petitioner. 4. In the counter, though the respondents have made averments with regard to the facts, they have also alleged that the petitioner has violated the norms by shifting the Anganwadi Centre without permission from the competent authority. It is further alleged that she did not produce the records pertaining to the period from 2014 to 2018 and that there are several allegations of misappropriation. 5. Considering the above said contentions and on perusal of the impugned orders as well as the averments made in the counter, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case only on the ground that the enquiry report has not been furnished to the petitioner. 6. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 03.03.2025 are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondents for reconsideration after furnishing the enquiry report to the petitioner and after obtaining her objections. Thereafter, the authorities may pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that, in view of the 5 setting aside of the impugned orders, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 04.02.2026 Ivd 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.7041 of 2025 Dated: 04.02.2026 Ivd