APHC010388382013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 491/2013 Between: 1. VEMAGIRI SUBHASHINI, W/O. SATYANANDAM, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-33/1, POLAMURU VILLAGE, ANAPARTHI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR / CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE, WOMAN & CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT WOMAN CHILD WELFARE, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME [ICDS], RAYAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent passed in Letter no. 51/2012, dated 8-10-2012 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, irrational, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as 2 Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Center no 156, Polamuru-1, Polamuru Village, East Godavari District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 604 OF 2013 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 suspend the proceedings of the 3rd respondent passed in Letter no. 51/2012, dated 8-10-2012, to direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Center no 156, Polamuru-1, Polamuru Village, East Godavari District , pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2012, whereby the petitioner was removed from the responsibility of Anganwadi Worker. 2. It is submitted that, on the allegation that the petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 r/w 34 IPC it is alleged that the petitioner attempted to sell 5 bags of Ravva and Dal. It is further alleged that, on the night of 26/27.06.2012, the police intercepted an auto rickshaw which was carrying 5 bags, and it is also alleged that the auto driver stated before the police that the bags were entrusted to him by the petitioner for selling them to a merchant. On the said allegations, the respondents issued the impugned proceedings. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 30.06.2012 and the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 04.07.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner had clarified that there was no excess supply and that the stock supplied tallied with the register. As such, the petitioner cannot be charged with any of the allegations levelled against her. 4. It is further submitted that the respondents, without conducting any enquiry, have straightaway passed the orders dated 08.10.2012. It is also submitted that the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 04.07.2012 4 was not considered while passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner was acquitted after a full-fledged trial in C.C.No.305 of 2012. 5. The attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph No.23 of the judgment passed in C.C.No.305 of 2012. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi, has categorically held that the prosecution has not placed the seized material before the Court nor produced any record indicating the seizure of the said material from accused No.2, who was the auto driver. It is submitted that, based on the confession statement of accused No.2 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused, and the said confession before the police officer was not considered as evidence for the purpose of the case. 6. That apart, a categorical finding was recorded that accused No.1 never received any such material, and the prosecution also failed to record the statements of the concerned officers of the respondent department for proving the allegation under Section 409 IPC. In the absence of the prosecution proving entrustment of the property, the learned Magistrate rightly acquitted the accused therein. It is submitted that the State has not filed any appeal against the said judgment. It is also submitted that, soon after passing of the judgment in C.C.No.305 of 2012, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, submitted a copy of the judgment, and requested for reinstatement. 5 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the police intercepted the auto rickshaw and found the 2nd respondent transporting 4 bags of Ravva and 1 bag of Dal, and upon enquiry, the 2nd respondent is stated to have informed that the petitioner had requested him to sell the stock at Ramachandrapuram. 8. It is submitted that the orders of termination were passed after the Selection Committee approved the same. It is also stated that the petitioner was expected to utilize the food supplies for the benefit of the poorest of the poor. Instead of utilizing them for the beneficiaries, the petitioner attempted to sell the food items at Ramachandrapuram with the help of the auto driver. Considering all these aspects, the respondents have passed the impugned orders. It is also stated that the respondents cannot show leniency to such an erring employee and, as such, the punishment of removal from service was imposed considering all the facts and circumstances. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that an enquiry report was submitted by the 3rd respondent and was attested by the Panchayat Secretary and the 2nd respondent. In the enquiry report, it is stated that the petitioner had attempted transportation of the bags and requested the respondent authorities to pardon her. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 11. Perused the record. 6 12. The enquiry report submitted along with the counter does not reveal any fresh details with regard to the enquiry conducted. All that is stated in the report is that the police seized the bags, the auto driver was arrested on 27.06.2012, and the Tahsildar was informed over phone regarding the stocks, and that the petitioner had admitted her mistake and requested to be excused by treating it as a first mistake. The details of the enquiry conducted and the participation of the petitioner in the enquiry do not find place in the enquiry report. 13. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Selection Committee passed proceedings dated 29.09.2012 and forwarded the same to the 1st respondent for appropriate action. The 1st respondent has passed the impugned proceedings removing the petitioner from service. The judgment passed in C.C.No.305 of 2012 has categorically clarified that the petitioner was not involved in the transportation of the stock or the alleged attempt to sell the same. The prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate also recorded that the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses and that the confession before the police officer was not reliable evidence. 14. That apart, the evidence of prosecution witness No.4, who is the Project Development Officer, reveals that there was no violation with regard to the allotted and supplied food. As such, it was held that there was no misappropriation of food. The impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside for the following reasons: 7 (i) The respondents have not conducted the enquiry in a fair and transparent manner, nor was an opportunity given to the petitioner to submit evidence. The enquiry report submitted along with the counter does not inspire confidence or establish that a proper enquiry was conducted. The allegation of misappropriation was not established before the Court. The Project Director, examined as P.W.4, has categorically stated that the stocks and food supplies tallied, and there was no question of misappropriation. The prosecution also failed to produce any proof of seizure of material from accused No.2. In the absence of any evidence of seizure, there cannot be any allegation of misappropriation against the petitioner. The respondents have erred in passing the impugned proceedings, and the same are liable to be set aside. (ii) The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service, and the respondents shall pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and accommodate the petitioner in any available vacancy in and around her place of residence. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed-in-part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 23.02.2026 PNS 8