THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.31083 OF 2017
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned orders in Proce.No.116/A/2017, dt.15.06.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent removing the petitioner from service as Anganwadi Teacher without conducting enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement into service as Anganwadi Teacher with all consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner belongs to SC Madiga community and she was fully eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Teacher. On 01.08.2002, the 3rd respondent issued Notification calling for applications for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Workers and the petitioner responded to the said Notification. Based on her merit, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker vide Proc.No.39/02 and posted to ICDS Project, Kistampuram Anganwadi Centre, Nalgonda District. The petitioner rendered service for nearly 15 years without any W.P.No.31083 of 2017 2 complaint from any quarter. It is submitted that on 22.06.2015, the petitioner was placed under suspension alleging that she attended to work under Employment Guarantee Scheme and availed the amounts illegally by showing negligence towards the duties as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner approached the authorities stating that she has not worked in the Employment Guarantee Scheme and though her name was entered in the job card, it was her husband who had worked in her place. It was also submitted that on the instructions issued by the authorities, she repaid the amounts on 14.03.2016. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent ventilating her grievance to consider her claim for admitting her into duties. It is submitted that the Joint Project Director also addressed a letter dt.14.09.2016 to the 4th respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement into duties. The petitioner made a further representation on 07.03.2017, but the same was not considered and vide proceedings dt.15.06.2017, the petitioner was removed from service. Challenging the removal order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. Ms. P. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner has W.P.No.31083 of 2017 3 put in nearly 15 years of service without any break and to the satisfaction of one and all, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law, her services have been terminated. She placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Limited1 to submit that the principles of natural justice are applicable even to a contractual/ outsourcing employee. She also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Gulam Mohammed Vs. Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad and others2 in support of the above proposition.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that though the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in the year 2002 and was working as such, she and another person by name B. Mahalaxmi, an Anganwadi Helper, have worked in the programme of Food for Work in their village by closing the Anganwadi Centre and claimed an amount of Rs.7,029/- through their job cards No.020131 and 030400 for their work from 15.05.2013 to 26.06.2014 without any intimation either to the Supervisor or to the CDPO, ICDS Project, 1 (1993) 3 SCC 259 2 2013 (1) ALD 501 W.P.No.31083 of 2017 4 Kodad. It is submitted that the petitioner and the said Anganwadi Helper have repaid the said amount claimed by them to the account of the Commissioner, Rural Development, Hyderabad vide D.D.No.844216 and D.D.No.539107. The respondents also stated that an enquiry was conducted by ACDPO and Supervisor and it was proved that both the Anganwadi Teacher and the Anganwadi Helper did not attend to their duties for the period from 15.05.2013 to 26.06.2014 and therefore, the petitioner and the Anganwadi Helper were issued two memos and finally a show-cause notice was also issued to both the petitioner as well as the Anganwadi Helper. It is submitted that based on the said enquiry report, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 11.06.2015 for her absence from duties till the final orders were passed. It is submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.14 issued by the Department for Women Children Disabled & Senior Citizens (Schemes), dt.23.05.2015, if any Anganwadi Teacher/Worker or Anganwadi Helper remains absent unauthorisedly for 15 days, the concerned Anganwadi Teacher/Worker or Anganwadi Helper can be terminated from their services. It is submitted that the petitioner is an honorarium employee and therefore, suspension will not apply to them and if any discrepancies are noticed, they will be terminated from service straight away and accordingly, the W.P.No.31083 of 2017 5 petitioner's services were terminated. The learned Government Pleader therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that G.O.Ms.No.14 dt.23.05.2015 provides guidelines/rules and responsibilities to Anganwadi Teachers/Workers and Anganwadi Helpers on payment of honorarium. As per the said G.O., the punishment prescribed for unauthorised absence for 15 days is immediate termination of service. The petitioner being Anganwadi Teacher/Worker was absent from duties for more than 15 days and therefore, the order of termination of her services without any further notice is justified. However, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the cases cited 1 and 2 supra, even before imposing the prescribed punishment of termination of services, principles of natural justice have to be followed. In this case, the respondents have not issued any notice before imposing the prescribed punishment of termination of services.
6. In view thereof, the impugned orders of removal from service issued by the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.116/A/2017, dt.15.06.2017 have to be set aside and the respondents are directed to issue notice to the W.P.No.31083 of 2017 6 petitioner before taking any further action in the matter. The period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement shall be considered as continuity of service for the purpose of retirement benefits only. The respondents are at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law if they wish to terminate the services of the petitioner. However, if the said post has already been filled up by any other person, then the respondents shall consider awarding of some monetary compensation to the petitioner for the balance of her service.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 27.09.2022 Svv