Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J.Vasantha, vs .The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 June, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.19934 of 2021
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to
declare the Proceedings No.89/A/2019, dated 31.08.2021 issued by the
4th respondent terminating the services of the petitioner as „Anganwadi
Worker‟ at Karreddu-2 Center Code No.0419, Karreddu Village, Ulavapadu
Mandal, Prakasam District, without conducting any proper enquiry and
without providing opportunity of personal hearing, as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of the petitioner‟s rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India, for a consequential direction to set aside the
same and to continue the petitioner as „Anganwadi Worker‟ at the said
Center.
2. Heard Mr.E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
Mr.Vema Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare
Department representing the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of
the present Writ Petition may be stated thus:
The petitioner joined as Anganwadi Worker in Karreddu-2 Center
Code No.0419, Karreddu Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District on
17.02.2000 and has been working for the past 21 years without any
remark. As the petitioner was suffering with back pain and on the advice
of the Doctor, who suggested bed rest, the petitioner applied for leave
from 15.08.2019 to 14.09.2019 on Loss of Pay and the same was
sanctioned. The petitioner with a view to take rest and as per the request
made by her son and daughter-in-law, who are employed in Singapore
NJS, J
wp_19934_2021
(Migrant Labour), proceeded to Singapore and after completion of leave
period joined the duty. While so, a memo dated 20.12.2020 was issued to
the petitioner calling upon her to submit explanation within three (3) days
as it came to light that she went abroad and was on leave from
15.08.2019 to 14.09.2019. The petitioner submitted her explanation inter
alia stating that in view of the health condition and as there is nobody to
look after her, except her son, who is in Singapore, she went abroad and
requested to condone the mistake committed by her. After series of
further Memos and explanation submitted thereto, by an Order dated
31.08.2021, the services of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker were
terminated. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the
petitioner is an illiterate and working as Anganwadi Worker on honorarium
basis, she had rendered more than 20 years of service without any remark
and in view of her health condition she went abroad to stay with her son
without knowing that she had to intimate to the higher authorities about
her visit to abroad. He submits that in fact, there are no specific rules
requiring the Anganwadi Worker to intimate to the higher authorities and
take prior permission in the event of going to a foreign land. He also
submits that in fact, the petitioner has not received honorarium also
during the relevant period when she went abroad. He further submits that
in the absence of specific rules, the action of the respondents in
terminating the services of the petitioner is grossly unjust and arbitrary,
apart from violative of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was
not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and her services were
straight away terminated. The learned counsel would also contend that
even in respect of the Government officials going abroad without
NJS, J
wp_19934_2021
permission of the Government, no such stringent action of termination
was resorted to, unlike in the present case. In support of his submissions,
the learned counsel places reliance on the decision of a Hon‟ble Division
Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
reported in Union of India and Others vs. Dr.Ms.Gopalakrishna1 and
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Ameerbi &
Others2. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not
committed any fault, except the mistake of non-intimation of her trip to
abroad, as detailed in her explanation and the authorities ought to have
taken a lenient view in the matter, more particularly, when there are no
specific rules governing the service. The learned counsel also submits that
the vacancy at Anganwadi Center in question has not been filled up so far
and unless the impugned Order is set aside and the petitioner is directed
be continued, she would suffer serious prejudice and irreparable loss.
5. Opposing the said submissions, the learned Government Pleader
strenuously contended that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles from
securing any relief from this Court. He submits that the petitioner without
intimation to the higher authorities went abroad, by obtaining Medical
Leave. He submits that the conduct of the petitioner is lacking in bona
fides, amounts to cheating and misrepresentation. He further submits that
the fact that she went abroad was not disputed by the petitioner and in
such circumstances, the authorities after complying with the principles of
natural justice, passed the Order under challenge, the same is within their
jurisdiction and cannot be found fault with. He further submits
G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 21.11.2008 contemplates that the Anganwadi
Worker should not avail leave without prior approval from the competent
1 2010 (4) ALD 25 (DB)
2 2007 (11) SCC 681
NJS, J
wp_19934_2021
authority and in the event the Anganwadi Worker is found to be
unauthorizedly absent, the competent authority is entitled to take action
for termination of services. He further submits that the petitioner herein
suppressed the relevant facts and is guilty of fraudulent conduct. He also
relies on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported in S.P.
Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs vs. Jagannath (Dead) by
L.Rs and Others3 in support of his contentions and submits that the Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. On a consideration of the rival contentions, the point that falls for
adjudication by this Court is "Whether the impugned Order of termination
on the ground that the petitioner went abroad without
intimation/permission of the departmental authorities is arbitrary and not
sustainable?"
7. Before considering the validity of the Order, it may be appropriate
to mention that though a contention was advanced to the effect that the
Order under challenge is violative of principles of natural justice, this Court
is not inclined to accept the same. Adequate opportunity has been
afforded to the petitioner by issuing several Memos to which the petitioner
had submitted her explanation/reply and thereafter the impugned Order
has been passed. The material on record discloses the above said aspects.
Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner went abroad, without prior
intimation and permission of the departmental authorities. Therefore it is
to be examined as to whether permission is required, if so, failure to
obtain the same and non-intimation warrants termination of services, as
resorted to in the present case?
3 (1994) 1 SCC Page 1
NJS, J
wp_19934_2021
8. On a thorough scrutiny of record, no material/specific Rules were
found requiring the Anganwadi Workers to intimate about their visit to
abroad and permission from the concerned authorities in that regard.
There is no mention in the impugned Order with reference to violation of
any specific Rule or condition of service which contemplates prior
intimation and permission of the authorities, in the event of an Anganwadi
Worker going to abroad. In the absence of the same, the petitioner cannot
be expected to intimate about her visit to abroad, much less taking
permission from the authorities. Though much emphasis is laid on
G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 21.11.2008, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the said G.O is of no avail to the respondents. No doubt, G.O.Ms.No.42,
dated 21.11.2008 contemplates that the Anganwadi Worker should not
avail leave without prior approval from the authority and action for
unauthorized absence is provided therein. However, the case on hand is
not one of unauthorized absence. The petitioner obtained Medical Leave
and it is not the case of the respondents that she is not suffering from any
ailment or the Medical Certificate issued to her is not genuine. No such
allegations were made against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the
contention that the petitioner mislead the authorities cannot be
appreciated. The question of intimation and obtaining permission would
arise only if the Rules/service conditions contemplate such requirement.
The Rules in respect of Government employees cannot be made applicable
to Anganwadi Workers and no specific permission need be obtained by
them for travelling abroad. Therefore, non-intimation of her travel to
abroad to the concerned authorities and seeking their permission cannot
be viewed/treated as a serious irregularity and punishment of termination
for the same is not only unsustainable, but also unconscionable.
NJS, J
wp_19934_2021
9. Though the Learned Government Pleader vehemently submitted that
the petitioner is guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of facts, this
Court, in the light of Medical Certificate on record, deems it not necessary to
delve much into the matter. Further, the petitioner did not gain any benefit,
as admittedly she had not received/claimed remuneration during the period
she went abroad, thus not caused any pecuniary or other loss to the
Department. Termination of services, in the light of the above stated position,
is unjust and not warranted or tenable. The Judgments relied on by the
Learned Government Pleader are of not much aid to the petitioner‟s case.
10. In Union of India and Others vs. Dr.Ms.Gopalakrishna referred
to supra, the Division Bench was dealing with a matter, wherein the
respondent employee went to abroad to pursue Post Doctoral Research work
while the application for sanction of E.O.L (Extraordinary Leave) is pending.
A Charge Memo was issued in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules and after conducting
an enquiry, the employee was removed from service. Challenging the same,
the employee filed an O.A before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
and the same was allowed, inter alia, holding that punishment of removal is
unconscionable and disproportionate to the charge levelled and the
Disciplinary authority had not acted fairly. Aggrieved by the same, the Union
of India filed a Writ Petition in the High Court. The Hon‟ble Division Bench
while concurring with the Order of the CAT that the punishment is
unconscionable and proportionate, however opined that the matter is
required to be considered by the Disciplinary authority by imposing minor
punishment. Though the said decision is not squarely applicable to the facts
of the present case, keeping in view the expression of the Hon‟ble Division
Bench and in the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, the Writ Petition
deserves to be allowed.
NJS, J
wp_19934_2021
11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. Impugned order is set
aside. The respondents are directed to issue necessary Orders reinstating
the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker within four (04) weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this Order. It is made clear that if the respondents
have availed the services of the petitioner during the pendency of the
instant Writ Petition, she is entitled for payment of remuneration for the
said period.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
__________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Date: .06.2022
IS
NJS, J
wp_19934_2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Writ Petition No.19934 of 2021
Date: .06.2022
IS
