Telangana High Court
Smt.Koram Premalatha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 12 June, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.29230 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe, and a postgraduate degree holder (M.A.). She was appointed as an Anganwadi Helper in Chithoni Village under the Tekulapally ICDS Project, Sudhimalla, Tekulapally Mandal, Khammam District, through a memo dated 05.08.1994, and has been rendering her services satisfactorily since then. It is her case that on 16.01.2011, a 4 years old child (S. Revanth), accidentally consumed a pesticide and died within the premises of the Anganwadi Centre. Upon receiving a complaint from the child's father, the Police registered a case vide FIR No. 01/2011 dated 01.07.2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and conducted an investigation, and filed a final report stating that the death was accidental due to consumption of insecticide poison. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent authority did not give opportunity to submit explanation to the cause of death. Even respondent authority did not issue any notice prior to terminating her service. She further states that the post of Noon Meal 2 WP_29230_2012 NBK,J Organizer, though not a service under Article 309 Rules, is a public employment, and hence removal on misconduct grounds carrying stigma requires adherence to the principles of natural justice. Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenglas Tea Estate vs. Workmen (AIR 1963 SC 1719), and contends that a person must be informed of the charges, allowed to cross-examine, and given a chance to rebut evidence; but, in the present case, no such fair enquiry was conducted. The petitioner contends that the termination of her services by the 3rd respondent-Project Director on 12.01.2011 was illegal and contrary to the District Collector's directions dated 08.01.2011, which only ordered her suspension pending enquiry. She was terminated without notice, opportunity, or any enquiry, violating Articles 14, 21, and 309 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also submits that subsequent reports, including the District Collector's note file and the Tahsildar's report dated 29.06.2011, states that she was not negligent in relation to the alleged incident on 06.01.2011 and the reports attribute negligence to the 3 WP_29230_2012 NBK,J villagers and confirm that the petitioner diligently performed her duties. Despite this, the District Collector failed to reconsider the termination of petitioner.
2. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for respondents. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of the writ affidavit, contends that the 2nd respondent-District Collector merely suspended the petitioner, pending enquiry proceedings; but the 3rd respondent, without issuance of notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner terminated her services. He contends that the Police authorities submitted a detailed report stating that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in regard to the incident of 06.01.2011; and terminating the services of petitioner, is therefore illegal and arbitrary.
4 WP_29230_2012 NBK,J
4. Learned Government Pleader, relying on the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, submits that the negligence of petitioner lead to the death of an innocent child; and the 2nd respondent instructed the suspension of petitioner; however, since these are honorarium-based posts, suspension provision was not applicable. It is further contended that the Tahsildar of Tekulapally Mandal was appointed as the enquiry officer, and on 29.06.2011, the Tahsildar reported that the petitioner resides in Kothagudem and frequently visits the centre but neglects her duties. On 15.08.2012, the 2nd respondent reviewed the matter and, finding the lapses grave, upheld the termination. Thereafter, the post was renotified on 05.08.2012, and a new Anganwadi Worker was appointed on 15.11.2012.
5. Considering the submissions of both the parties, it may be noted that the petitioner was terminated from service on account of the death of a child (aged 4 years) in the premises of Anganwadi centre when the petitioner was on duty. The investigation revealed that the death was 5 WP_29230_2012 NBK,J accidental, due to consumption of pesticide. The 2nd respondent-District Collector, directed suspension of the petitioner; however, the 3rd respondent-Project Director terminated her services by observing that honorarium- based posts does not have a suspension provision.
6. It may be noted that even for honorarium-based posts, the removal from service, on the grounds involving stigma, requires adherence to the principles of natural justice, as held in Meenglas Tea Estate (supra). In the instant case, though the petitioner was placed under suspension, no notice was issued by the 3rd respondent before terminating her services. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.01.2011 terminating the services of petitioner is hereby set aside.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent-District Collector shall forthwith reinstate the petitioner. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 12.06.2025 Smk