Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Dhana Lakshmi, vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.26102 OF 2011
%01.08.2024
#Between:
K.Dhana Lakshmi, W/o.Karunakar, aged 45 years,
R/o.Ramatheertham Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore
District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary,
Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner, Women Development and Child Welfare
Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad.
3. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District at Nellore.
4. The Project Director, District Women and Child Welfare Agency
Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
5. The Regional Deputy Director, Women Development and Child
Welfare Department, ONgole, Prakasam District.
6. The Child Development Project Officer ICDS Project,
Buchireddypalem, SPSR Nellore District.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Sri.Sreekanth Reddy Ambati
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE
The Court made the following:
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
This Court made the following:
//2//
WP.No.26102 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.26102 OF 2011
%01.08.2024
#Between:
K.Dhana Lakshmi, W/o.Karunakar, aged 45 years,
R/o.Ramatheertham Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore
District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary,
Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner, Women Development and Child Welfare
Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad.
3. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District at Nellore.
4. The Project Director, District Women and Child Welfare Agency
Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.
5. The Regional Deputy Director, Women Development and Child
Welfare Department, ONgole, Prakasam District.
6. The Child Development Project Officer ICDS Project,
Buchireddypalem, SPSR Nellore District.
...RESPONDENT(S):
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 01.08.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
//3//
WP.No.26102 of 2011
APHC010221602011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 26102/2011
Between:
K.Dhana Lakshmi, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Sri.Sreekanth Reddy Ambati
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE
The Court made the following:
//4//
WP.No.26102 of 2011
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.26102 of 2011
ORDER :
The petitioner is challenging the proceedings Rc.No.540/A1/2011,
dated 03.09.2011 terminating the services of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on
29.12.1998. After having work for about two decades the
petitioner was selected as Supervisor Grade - II on contract basis
on 19.04.2006. The appointment would lapse after a period of one
year and the petitioner would have to work as Anganwadi Worker.
However, in the case of the petitioner the period of appointment
was extended from time to time.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was
implicated in a false case registered by ACB on 11.12.2008. On
the strength of the said complaint the 5th respondent/authorities
issued proceedings dated 14.12.2008 terminating the petitioner
from service.
4. The petitioner filed WP.No.2015 of 2009 challenging the unilateral
termination by the respondent. This Court while disposing of the
writ petition vide order dated 22.04.2009 directed the respondents
to reinstate the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker. As the
//5//
respondents did not comply with the orders of this Court the
petitioner filed a contempt case vide CC.No.378 of 2010. The
respondents issued proceedings dated 15.05.2010 reinstating the
petitioner as Anganwadi Worker after this Court took a serious
view in contempt case filed by the petitioner.
5. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 took an adversarial stand towards the
petitioner as the petitioner filed contempt against the officers of
the respondent. The 5th respondent issued proceedings dated
03.09.2011 straight away terminating the services of the petitioner
on the ground that an ACB case was pending against the
petitioner.
6. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that a trap was laid for the
petitioner and the ACB registered a case after finding some
amount in the hand bag of the petitioner. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that some currency notes were planted in
the register. The register was initially handed over by the
petitioner to one Rangaiah for signatures. The said Rangaiah took
the register and sat on a stair case for signatures and returned the
register to the colleague of the petitioner. At the time of handing
over the said register some currency notes fell on the ground and
that the petitioner enquired with Annapurna as to how the
//6//
currency notes fell down from the register when the petitioner did
not keep the money in the register. The said Annapurna picked up
the notes and kept in the hand bag of the petitioner and in the
meanwhile Anti Corruption Bureau officials conducted a raid and
registered a case against the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ACB Court
took cognizance filed by the ACB police as CC.No.3 of 2015. After
a thorough trial the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,
Nellore vide judgment dated 12.07.2016 acquitted the petitioner.
The copy of the said judgment is placed on record by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
8. As seen from the judgment the learned Special Judge for SPE
and ACB cases has categorically held that there is absolutely no
iota of evidence on record to prove that the accused gained
pecuniary advantage as a public servant by indulging into corrupt
and illegal means.
9. The learned Special Judge also held that the prosecution has
failed to establish that the accused demanded illegal gratification
at any point of time. It was also observed that the chemical test
conducted on the hands of the petitioner did not yield any positive
result. The Court also has noted that there was no official favour
//7//
which was pending compliance on part of the petitioner in
exchange of the alleged demanded bribe amount.
10. Having held the accused as not guilty and at the same time the
observation of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases that
there was absolutely no evidence to point the finger of suspicion
towards the accused therein, the said acquittal ought to be
considered a clear acquittal on merits.
11. The respondents in their counter submit the employee or public
servant is involved in serious offences such as ACB cases there is
no necessity for issuing prior notice for terminating the petitioner.
The entire counter revolves around the registration of the case
against the petitioner by the ACB and substantiating the
proceedings of termination there is nothing on the merits of the
case.
12. The point for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned
proceedings would withstand the scrutiny of law. As seen from the
proceedings the proceedings are drafted keeping in view the re-
appointment of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker in
pursuance of the orders of this Court. The impugned proceedings
also refer to the contempt case filed by the petitioner. It is stated
//8//
that the services of the petitioner are removed with the approval of
the committee as criminal case was pending.
13. This Court has no hesitation in holding that mere pendency of a
criminal case would not entitle the respondents to straight away
issue termination proceedings. The respondents have ignored the
cardinal principle of innocent until proven guilty. Mere pendency of
criminal case ought not to result in issuance of termination of
services of an employee. The pendency of criminal case to a large
extent would not hamper or come in the way of the employee in
discharging the official duties. The respondents are duty bound to
issue a show cause notice and conduct the necessary enquiry
before imposing any punishment on the said employee.
14. On the facts of the present case, admittedly no enquiry was either
initiated or proposed or conducted or concluded against the
petitioner. It is evident on the face of the impugned proceedings
that the respondents were waiting in wings to terminate the
petitioner at the slightest of the opportunity. The respondents
issued the impugned proceedings terminating the petitioner from
services without even conducting any enquiry. The respondents
are legally required to conduct enquiry in a fair manner duly
following the principles of natural justice before imposing any
//9//
major punishment on an employee. Any major punishment
imposed on an employee without conducting any enquiry has to
be set aside as the same is bad in law.
15. This Court while admitting the writ petition granted interim orders
directing respondents not to fill up the vacancy, until further
orders.
16. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on merits. The
impugned proceedings were issued in pursuance of the
registration of the said crime against the petitioner. That apart, the
impugned proceedings are issued without initiating or conducting
any disciplinary proceedings or enquiry. No show cause notice
was issued. With these lacuna on part of the respondents, this
Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned proceedings
Rc.No.540/A1/2011, dated 03.09.2011.
17. Having found the termination of the petitioner as illegal. It is further
directed that the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner into
service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
this order. The petitioner shall be entitled for 50% of back wages
and the petitioner shall be extended all service benefits. The
respondents are directed to compute the 50% back wages and
pay the same within a period of four weeks from the date of
//10//
receipt of these orders and the respondents are further directed to
extend all services benefits to the petitioner.
18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 01.08.2024
LR copy to be marked
B/o.KGM
//11//
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.26102 of 2011
Dated 01.08.2024
LR copy to be marked
KGM
