T. Vijayamma, Nalgonda Dist vs Prl. Secretary, Women Child ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4937 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

                WRIT PETITION NO.31083 OF 2017

                               ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to

declare the impugned orders in Proce.No.116/A/2017, dt.15.06.2017

issued by the 3rd respondent removing the petitioner from service as

Anganwadi Teacher without conducting enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary and

unconstitutional and to consequently direct the respondents to consider

the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement into service as Anganwadi

Teacher with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are

that the petitioner belongs to SC Madiga community and she was fully

eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Anganwadi

Teacher. On 01.08.2002, the 3rd respondent issued Notification calling

for applications for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Workers and

the petitioner responded to the said Notification. Based on her merit, the

petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker vide Proc.No.39/02 and

posted to ICDS Project, Kistampuram Anganwadi Centre, Nalgonda

District. The petitioner rendered service for nearly 15 years without any W.P.No.31083 of 2017

complaint from any quarter. It is submitted that on 22.06.2015, the

petitioner was placed under suspension alleging that she attended to

work under Employment Guarantee Scheme and availed the amounts

illegally by showing negligence towards the duties as Anganwadi

Worker. The petitioner approached the authorities stating that she has

not worked in the Employment Guarantee Scheme and though her name

was entered in the job card, it was her husband who had worked in her

place. It was also submitted that on the instructions issued by the

authorities, she repaid the amounts on 14.03.2016. The petitioner

submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent ventilating her

grievance to consider her claim for admitting her into duties. It is

submitted that the Joint Project Director also addressed a letter

dt.14.09.2016 to the 4th respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner

for reinstatement into duties. The petitioner made a further

representation on 07.03.2017, but the same was not considered and vide

proceedings dt.15.06.2017, the petitioner was removed from service.

Challenging the removal order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Ms. P. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri A. Ravinder,

learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner has W.P.No.31083 of 2017

put in nearly 15 years of service without any break and to the

satisfaction of one and all, without issuing any notice and without

following due process of law, her services have been terminated. She

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of D.K.Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Limited1 to submit that the

principles of natural justice are applicable even to a contractual/

outsourcing employee. She also placed reliance upon the judgment of

this Court in the case of Md. Gulam Mohammed Vs. Regional

Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad and others2 in support of the above

proposition.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that

though the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in the

year 2002 and was working as such, she and another person by name B.

Mahalaxmi, an Anganwadi Helper, have worked in the programme of

Food for Work in their village by closing the Anganwadi Centre and

claimed an amount of Rs.7,029/- through their job cards No.020131 and

030400 for their work from 15.05.2013 to 26.06.2014 without any

intimation either to the Supervisor or to the CDPO, ICDS Project,

(1993) 3 SCC 259

2013 (1) ALD 501 W.P.No.31083 of 2017

Kodad. It is submitted that the petitioner and the said Anganwadi Helper

have repaid the said amount claimed by them to the account of the

Commissioner, Rural Development, Hyderabad vide D.D.No.844216

and D.D.No.539107. The respondents also stated that an enquiry was

conducted by ACDPO and Supervisor and it was proved that both the

Anganwadi Teacher and the Anganwadi Helper did not attend to their

duties for the period from 15.05.2013 to 26.06.2014 and therefore, the

petitioner and the Anganwadi Helper were issued two memos and

finally a show-cause notice was also issued to both the petitioner as well

as the Anganwadi Helper. It is submitted that based on the said enquiry

report, the petitioner was placed under suspension from 11.06.2015 for

her absence from duties till the final orders were passed. It is submitted

that as per G.O.Ms.No.14 issued by the Department for Women

Children Disabled & Senior Citizens (Schemes), dt.23.05.2015, if any

Anganwadi Teacher/Worker or Anganwadi Helper remains absent

unauthorisedly for 15 days, the concerned Anganwadi Teacher/Worker

or Anganwadi Helper can be terminated from their services. It is

submitted that the petitioner is an honorarium employee and therefore,

suspension will not apply to them and if any discrepancies are noticed,

they will be terminated from service straight away and accordingly, the W.P.No.31083 of 2017

petitioner's services were terminated. The learned Government Pleader

therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

it is noticed that G.O.Ms.No.14 dt.23.05.2015 provides guidelines/rules

and responsibilities to Anganwadi Teachers/Workers and Anganwadi

Helpers on payment of honorarium. As per the said G.O., the

punishment prescribed for unauthorised absence for 15 days is

immediate termination of service. The petitioner being Anganwadi

Teacher/Worker was absent from duties for more than 15 days and

therefore, the order of termination of her services without any further

notice is justified. However, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the cases cited 1 and 2 supra,

even before imposing the prescribed punishment of termination of

services, principles of natural justice have to be followed. In this case,

the respondents have not issued any notice before imposing the

prescribed punishment of termination of services.

6. In view thereof, the impugned orders of removal from service

issued by the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.116/A/2017, dt.15.06.2017 have

to be set aside and the respondents are directed to issue notice to the W.P.No.31083 of 2017

petitioner before taking any further action in the matter. The period from

the date of termination till the date of reinstatement shall be considered

as continuity of service for the purpose of retirement benefits only. The

respondents are at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter

proceed in accordance with law if they wish to terminate the services of

the petitioner. However, if the said post has already been filled up by

any other person, then the respondents shall consider awarding of some

monetary compensation to the petitioner for the balance of her service.

7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No

order as to costs.

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 27.09.2022 Svv