Ch Baby vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 4652 AP

      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

               WRIT PETITION No. 1015 of 2019

ORDER:-

       The instant writ petition is filed challenging the action of the

4th respondent in passing a removal order vide proceedings

No.32/A/2018 dated 24.01.2019 without any enquiry, without

following principles of natural justice as illegal, arbitrary, violative

of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21

of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same as it is

stigmatic to the career of the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child

Welfare Department appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner was appointed as an anganwadi worker in

the year 2003 and working in Jaggaraju Peta anganwadi centre,

Jaggarajupeta Village, East Godavari District. On 15.11.2018, a

Member of Andhra Pradesh State Food Commission (for short

'APSFC'), Vijayawada, visited the said centre and observed certain

irregularities. He submitted his report, on the basis of which, a

show cause notice dated 15.11.2018 was issued by the 4th

respondent wherein while referring to the irregularities during the

course of visit by the Member of APSFC, the petitioner was called

upon to submit her explanation, within a period of 3 days from the

date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner on receipt of the

said show cause notice, due to lack of knowledge, addressed a

reply dated 17.11.2018 to the Member of APSFC instead of the 4th

NJS,J W.P.No.1015 of 2019

respondent, but submitted the same in the office of the 4th

respondent. Subsequently, on 24.01.2019, the 4th respondent

passed the order of removal which is impugned in the writ

petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the

order of the 4th respondent has been passed in gross violation of

principles of natural justice. She submits that the order impugned

has been passed on the basis of the report submitted by the

Member of APSFC, without conducting any enquiry and pursuant

to the directions of the 2nd respondent. It is her contention that as

the order of removal casts a stigma on the career of the

petitioner, the respondents are ordained to conduct a proper

enquiry, by giving due opportunity to the petitioner and in the

present case, no such procedure has been followed and therefore

the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel

in support of her contentions also places reliance on the judgment

of Hon'ble Division Bench in Smt. B.Yogeswaramma v.

Collector, Srikakulam District1 and contends that the writ

petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on the basis of the

averments made in the counter-affidavit submits that the order

impugned has been passed after giving opportunity to the

petitioner and in view of the report of the Hon'ble Member of

APSFC, the authorities are justified in issuing the order of

termination.

1 2017 (4) ALD 615

NJS,J W.P.No.1015 of 2019

6. This Court has considered the rival contentions of both

sides and perused the material on record. In the present case,

the inspection of the anganwadi centre in question on 15.11.2018

by a Hon'ble Member of APSFC, Vijayawada, is not in dispute.

Pursuant to the said inspection and report of the said Member, a

show cause notice dated 15.11.2018 was issued by the 4th

respondent wherein the irregularities alleged to have been noticed

during the course of inspection on 15.11.2018 were referred to.

Even as per the admitted case of the petitioner, a reply to the

show cause notice was addressed to the said Member due to lack

of knowledge, however the same was submitted in the office of

the 4th respondent. The petitioner studied 10th class and it is not

her case that the said reply which is filed as Ex.P3 is not

submitted by her. A reading of the same would go to show that

the petitioner tacitly admitted her lapses as noticed by the Hon'ble

Member of APSFC. In such circumstances, no separate enquiry, in

the opinion of this Court is required to be conducted, as

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of

B.Yogeswaramma (referred to supra) on which reliance was

placed, there is denial of charges levelled against the delinquent

and in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the

Hon'ble Division Bench held that the order of termination without

conducting enquiry is unsustainable. The said judgment, in the

considered opinion of this Court, is not applicable to the facts of

the present case, where there is no denial of the allegations made

against the petitioner.

NJS,J W.P.No.1015 of 2019

7. Be that as it may. The authorities, on receipt of

reply/explanation are required to consider the same and in the

event of proposing any punishment, should have afforded an

opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why the

proposed punishment shall not be imposed. In the present case,

the order of termination was passed purportedly on the basis of

note orders of the 2nd respondent, without issuing any notice.

The impugned order is therefore, liable to be set aside on that

short point.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.01.2019 is set

aside, however, with liberty to the respondents to pass

appropriate order after issuing show cause notice and considering

the explanation, if any, of the petitioner thereon, within a period

of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The writ petition is allowed, accordingly, to the extent

indicated above, without costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand dismissed.

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 15.11.2021.

BLV

NJS,J W.P.No.1015 of 2019

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

W.P.No.1015 of 2019 Dated 15.11.2021

BLV