THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.6608 of 2015
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
.....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the
action of the respondents without conducting proper
enquiry by passing impugned orders of termination orders vide proceeding No.Rc.No.689/2014/A4, dated 18.12.2014, as illegal, improper and arbitrary and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings No.Rc.No.689/2014/A4, dated 18.12.2014 and pass such other orders."
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker on 27.08.2022 in Vizainagaram District and discharging her duties without any remark. On 06.09.2014, the Ex-Sarpanch and village elders gave a false complaint against her stating that 50 kgs of rice which belongs to Anganwadi Centre was misused, but in fact, one K. Lakshmi, who was working as Anganwadi worker of Chodavaram Center-2 had taken 50 kgs of rice from her center stating that the rice in her center was spoiled due to rain. Basing on the complaint and publication of news in Eenadu daily newspaper on 31.08.2014, 3rd respondent issued show cause notice vide letter No.2/2014 dated 18.09.2014. After receiving the show cause notice, she submitted her detailed 2 explanation to the 3rd respondent on 22.09.2014 and also representation to 2nd respondent on 28.11.2014 stating that due to political disputes in the village, some of the village elders have given a false complaint against her without proper enquiry. The 2nd respondent without considering her explanation and representation, mechanically passed impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.689/2014/A4, dated 18.12.2014 terminating her from service, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner questioned the action of the 2nd respondent and requested to issue a direction as stated supra.
The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that in view of news published in Eenadu daily, dated 31.08.2014 captioned as "Anganwadi Biyyam Pakkadri", 3rd respondent along with sector supervisor visited the Anganwadi Center and conducted enquiry on 01.09.2014 in the presence of Village Sarpanch, Mandal parishad Territorial Constituency, Ward members, mothers of Anganwadi beneficiaries and other village elders, noticed shortage of stock balance of 50 kgs rice in the Anganwadi centre, as such, Memo No.3 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating that she has issued 50 kgs rice to the Anganwadi worker, Chodavaram-II, Anganwadi Centre on loan basis and some of the opponents have made false allegations against her. However, as the explanation of the petitioner is not amenable and satisfactory, the 3rd respondent 3 has issued show cause notice vide letter No.2/2014 dated 18.09.2014 to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner submitted her explanation, which is not satisfactory. Basing on the terms of the provisions contained in the Circular Memo No.11645/K2/96 dated 14.03.1997 of Director, Women Development & Child Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad, the Selection Committee of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers, Vizianagaram District have agreed to terminate the services of the petitioner, accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued termination proceedings vide Rc.No.689/2014/A4 dated 18.12.2014, terminating the petitioner from service.
Heard Smt. Akella Padma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Women and Child Welfare for respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent without conducting any elaborate enquiry decided that the petitioner is found guilty and mechanically passed impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.689/2014/A4 dated 18.12.2014 against the petitioner, which is not prescribed under law and requested to remand the matter to the 2nd respondent for conducting elaborate enquiry and final report.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that after conducting enquiry, Memo No.3 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014 was issued to the petitioner, but not satisfied with 4 the explanation of the petitioner, show cause notice vide letter No.2/2014 dated 18.09.2014 was issued, but there are no amenable and satisfactory grounds found in the explanation of the petitioner, as such, the 2nd respondent issued termination proceedings vide Rc.No.689/2014/A4 dated 18.12.2014 against the petitioner.
It is settled law while considering the petitions, the writ petition is maintainable though alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.
In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others1 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus:
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 has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least 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 jurisdiction 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. 1 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 5 It is noted that as per judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Nakka Suribabu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others2, wherein this Court was held that "it should be noted that the 3rd respondent has not discussed the contents in the written explanation as well as the previous reports and has not given reasons as to how he was not satisfied with the submissions made in the explanation and how the findings in the previous reports were not convicting. Most importantly, he has not mentioned as to how the complaint allegations were established and what was the material which weighed with him to come to such conclusion. The order shows, no personal hearing seems to have been accorded to the petitioner. Therefore it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice."
After hearing the arguments of both the counsels and on a close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 show, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after noting in detail the allegations in the complaint, the 2 nd respondent has jumped into the conclusion stating that on seeing the explanation and previous enquiry reports, he found the petitioner violated the conditions under Disciplinary Rules. He accordingly terminated the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi worker. It should be noted that the 2nd respondent has not discussed the contents in the detailed explanation as 2 W.P.No.12941 of 2020 dated 16.09.2020 6 well as the previous reports and has not given reasons as to how he was not satisfied with the submissions made in the explanation and how the findings in the previous reports were not convincing. Most importantly, he has not mentioned as to how the complaint allegations were established and what was the material which weighed with him to come to such conclusion. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having found that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner herein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand.
No doubt, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent that an appeal provision is provided in the concerned rules and thereby the writ is not maintainable. I am not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, for the reason, in the instant case there is a discernible violation of principles of natural justice as noted supra. Though admittedly, the petitioner submitted her written explanation, the same was not considered and no personal 7 hearing was also granted to the petitioner at the time of enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of Constitution of India is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.689/2014/A4 dated 18.12.2014 passed by the 2 nd respondent are set aside and remanded back the matter to the 2nd respondent, and further 2nd respondent is directed to consider the written explanation of the petitioner and other relevant material and afford an elaborate personal hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with the governing law and rules as expeditiously as possible but not later than eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 21.03.2022.
JKS 8 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6608 of 2015 Date: 21.03.2022 JKS Note: Furnish copy by 25.03.2022.
B/O JKS