APHC010193362019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8332/2019 Between: 1. M SUJATHA, W/O M NAGESH AGED 47 YEARS, OCC- ANGANWADI WORKER (NOW REMOVED FROM SERVICE) BAKARAPET VILLAGE SIDDHOUT MANDAL YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL SECRETARY FOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT AT AMRAVATI AP 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN DLSC, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AT KADAPA 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR II, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AT KADAPA 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, AT KADAPA 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER I C D S PROJECT, SIDHOUT MANDAL KADAPA 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 2 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 pleased topleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating service of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker vide impugned proc No- 92/A/2019 dt 21-6-2019 of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings dt 21-6-2019 of the 4th respondent and the orders No. 3/A3/2018 dt 23-11-2018 of the 5th respondent with direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service by suspending the impugned proceedings No- 92/A/2019 dt 21-6-2019 of the 4th respondent and the orders No. 3/A3/2018 dt 23-11-2018 of the 5th respondent in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating service of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker vide impugned proc No- 92/A/2019 dt 21-6-2019 of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings dt 21-6-2019 of the 4th respondent and the orders No. 3/A3/2018 dt 23-11-2018 of the 5th respondent with direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice…” 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as anganwadi worker in the year 1998 in Bakarapet village, Sidhout mandal, Kadapa district and ever since, she has been discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction of her superiors. 3. While the matter stood thus, on 22.11.2018, the respondent authorities conducted a surprise inspection in Bakarapet anganwadi center and noticed certain irregularities in the anganwadi centre. Subsequently, vide proceedings bearing No.3/A3/2018, dated 23.11.2018, the 5th respondent placed the petitioner under suspension and on 24.11.2018, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for 4 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 her explanation; accordingly, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations leveled against her; in spite of the same, the 4th respondent, after a lapse of six months, issued a memo dated 25.04.2019 calling for a fresh explanation from the petitioner duly mentioning the following irregularities: i. That, among 22 children enrolled in Anganwadi Centre, Bakarapet (V), only 8 children attended to the Anganwadi Centre at the time of visit, which exhibits dereliction and negligence of her duties as Anganwadi Worker. ii. 2 Trays of eggs have been noticed, in that one spoiled egg & 5 small size eggs and 1 broken egg with worms is also found which exhibits dereliction and negligence of her duties as Anganwadi Worker. iii. No preparations for provision of egg/milk Anna Amrutha Hastam (Meal) have been made by the time which exhibits dereliction and negligence of her duties as Anganwadi Worker. iv. Maintenance of Anganwadi Centre is unhygienic which exhibits negligence of her duties as Anganwadi Worker. v. The Anganwadi worker has not replied and not responded for the questions of the authorities during the visit which exhibits negligence of her duties. 4. Pursuant to the said memo, the petitioner is said to have submitted her explanation on 01.05.2019 stating that on the morning of 22.11.2018, it was raining and that she went to bring all the children to 5 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 anaganwadi centre, but the parents of children did not send their children to anganwadi centre as it was raining; that the size of the eggs were irregular by the time they were supplied; that the petitioner did not prepare food at the centre as it was raining continuously and that the place of cooking became wet; that she prepared food and eggs at her home and brought the same to anganwadi centre. Stating thus, the petitioner requested the 5th respondent to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. In spite of the same, the 5th respondent, without even assigning any reasons as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory or unacceptable, terminated the petitioner vide the impugned proceedings dated 21.06.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit admitting the facts stated by the petitioner. With regard to the explanation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the five irregularities mentioned in memo dated 25.04.2019, it is stated as under: i) The explanation offered by the Angnawadi Worker and the findings of the enquiry officer saying that, it rained overnight and also in the morning, thus parents of the small children refused to send their children to the Anganwadi Center, appears to be convincing and therefore can be considered. ii) As seen from the explanation of the Anganwadi Worker the eggs were received on 13.11.2018 and 6 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 she recorded in her explanation that she could not notice the spoiled egg and broken egg available in the tray and she may be excused for that. She also said and recorded in her explanation that she could not distribute the eggs to the women (Pregnant and lactating mothers) as they were going to the labour works on agricultural field and coolie and therefore eggs were available in 2 trays (Full in one tray & some in the other one). The Enquiry Officer in her findings also reiterated the same based on the statements obtained from the individuals. iii) The Anganwadi Worker offered her explanation saying that, the firewood was drenched due to rain for the two days and so she was unable to cook the food and eggs therefore, she made preparations at her home to bring the food and eggs by 12.00 Noon and meanwhile the officers arrived at the Anganwadi Center. The Enquiry Officer also reiterated the same. iv) The Anganwadi Worker offered her explanation saying that, the children played there because of which mud stains were there. The enquiry officer in her findings reiterated the same. v) The Anganwadi Worker not replied and not responded properly. The Anganwadi Worker offered her explanation saying that, out of tension and fears she could not properly replied to the officers. 6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that it is not acceptable to say that the supplier/contractor supplied small eggs; if that is the case, the petitioner could bring the same to the notice of her superiors to get the problem rectified. It is further stated that there was utter negligence on the part of the petitioner and that as per circular memo 7 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 dated 14.03.1997, if any food consigning of safe risk events to the children, pregnant/lactating mothers by taking unhygienic food, water in particular angawadi workers, then the anganwadi worker is liable for termination. After receiving report from the A.P. State Food Commission, dated 21.12.2018 and 22.12.2018, the District Collector and Chairman, DLSC, Kadapa vide note orders dated 18.06.2019 issued termination orders to the petitioner. Subsequently, according to the orders of the District Collector, the 5th respondent terminated the petitioner from her services vide impugned proceedings dated 21.06.2019 as per G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 21.11.2008 and circular memo dated 09.02.1995. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri. T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. 8. Perused the entire material available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in the year 1998 at Bakarapet Village, Sidhout Mandal, Kadapa District and while so, on 22.11.2018, the respondent authorities conducted a surprise inspection of the Bakarapet Anganwadi Centre and noticed certain alleged irregularities. Pursuant thereto, the 5th respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings dated 23.11.2018 and issued a show- 8 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 cause notice dated 24.11.2018 calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations and explaining the circumstances in which the alleged irregularities had occurred. Thereafter, after a lapse of nearly six months, the 4th respondent issued another memo dated 25.04.2019 calling upon the petitioner to furnish a fresh explanation in respect of five alleged irregularities noticed during the inspection. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 01.05.2019, specifically explaining that there was continuous rain on the date of inspection, on account of which the parents had not sent their children to the Anganwadi Centre; that the eggs supplied were of irregular size and that one spoiled and one broken egg could not be noticed by her; that the food and eggs could not be prepared at the Centre as the firewood and cooking area had become wet due to the rains and, therefore, she had made the preparations at her residence and brought them to the Centre; that the alleged mud stains were caused by the children playing in the premises; and that, due to tension and fear during the inspection, she could not properly respond to the questions put by the inspecting authorities. 9. 9. In spite of submitting a detailed explanation, without recording any finding as to why the same was unacceptable or dissatisfactory, the 5th respondent, relying upon the note orders said to have been issued by 9 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 the District Collector and Chairman, DLSC, Kadapa, dated 18.06.2019, terminated the petitioner from service vide the impugned proceedings dated 21.06.2019. It appears that the 5th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings merely relying upon the orders of the District Collector and Chairman without assigning any independent reasons. 10. It appears that the 5th respondent, merely relying upon the orders issued by the District Collector and Chairman, DLSC, Kadapa, proceeded to terminate the petitioner with a predetermined mind. This Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons and circumstances explained by the petitioner, particularly with regard to the rain on the date of inspection, the non-attendance of children, the condition of the eggs supplied, and the circumstances in which the food was prepared, cannot be said to be wholly untenable and appear to be reasonable and acceptable. It can be understood that the 5th respondent dealt with the case of the petitioner with a predetermined mind and treated the orders of the District Collector as conclusive, mechanically proceeding to terminate the petitioner without considering the explanation on its own merits. Thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set-aside. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the post of anganwadi worker of Bakarapet anganwadi center, Sidhout mandal, Kadapa district is lying vacant. 10 VS,J W.P.No.8332 of 2019 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 21.06.2019 are hereby set-aside. In view of the same, respondents shall take appropriate action, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 31.08.2026 Gss