P. Parvathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1363 AP

          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

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

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

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.

AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998

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

W.P.No.12941 of 2020 dated 16.09.2020

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

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

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