Telangana High Court
Smt.Koram Premalatha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its ... on 12 June, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.29230 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe, and a
postgraduate degree holder (M.A.). She was appointed as
an Anganwadi Helper in Chithoni Village under the
Tekulapally ICDS Project, Sudhimalla, Tekulapally
Mandal, Khammam District, through a memo dated
05.08.1994, and has been rendering her services
satisfactorily since then. It is her case that on
16.01.2011, a 4 years old child (S. Revanth), accidentally
consumed a pesticide and died within the premises of the
Anganwadi Centre. Upon receiving a complaint from the
child's father, the Police registered a case vide FIR No.
01/2011 dated 01.07.2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
and conducted an investigation, and filed a final report
stating that the death was accidental due to consumption
of insecticide poison. Further case of the petitioner is that
respondent authority did not give opportunity to submit
explanation to the cause of death. Even respondent
authority did not issue any notice prior to terminating her
service. She further states that the post of Noon Meal
2 WP_29230_2012
NBK,J
Organizer, though not a service under Article 309 Rules,
is a public employment, and hence removal on
misconduct grounds carrying stigma requires adherence
to the principles of natural justice. Petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenglas Tea
Estate vs. Workmen (AIR 1963 SC 1719), and contends
that a person must be informed of the charges, allowed to
cross-examine, and given a chance to rebut evidence; but,
in the present case, no such fair enquiry was conducted.
The petitioner contends that the termination of her
services by the 3rd respondent-Project Director on
12.01.2011 was illegal and contrary to the District
Collector's directions dated 08.01.2011, which only
ordered her suspension pending enquiry. She was
terminated without notice, opportunity, or any enquiry,
violating Articles 14, 21, and 309 of the Constitution of
India. The petitioner also submits that subsequent
reports, including the District Collector's note file and the
Tahsildar's report dated 29.06.2011, states that she was
not negligent in relation to the alleged incident on
06.01.2011 and the reports attribute negligence to the
3 WP_29230_2012
NBK,J
villagers and confirm that the petitioner diligently
performed her duties. Despite this, the District Collector
failed to reconsider the termination of petitioner.
2. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government
Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for
respondents. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making
submissions on the lines of the writ affidavit, contends
that the 2nd respondent-District Collector merely
suspended the petitioner, pending enquiry proceedings;
but the 3rd respondent, without issuance of notice or
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
terminated her services. He contends that the Police
authorities submitted a detailed report stating that there
was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in regard
to the incident of 06.01.2011; and terminating the
services of petitioner, is therefore illegal and arbitrary.
4 WP_29230_2012
NBK,J
4. Learned Government Pleader, relying on the counter
affidavit filed by respondent No.4, submits that the
negligence of petitioner lead to the death of an innocent
child; and the 2nd respondent instructed the suspension
of petitioner; however, since these are honorarium-based
posts, suspension provision was not applicable. It is
further contended that the Tahsildar of Tekulapally
Mandal was appointed as the enquiry officer, and on
29.06.2011, the Tahsildar reported that the petitioner
resides in Kothagudem and frequently visits the centre
but neglects her duties. On 15.08.2012, the 2nd
respondent reviewed the matter and, finding the lapses
grave, upheld the termination. Thereafter, the post was
renotified on 05.08.2012, and a new Anganwadi Worker
was appointed on 15.11.2012.
5. Considering the submissions of both the parties, it
may be noted that the petitioner was terminated from
service on account of the death of a child (aged 4 years) in
the premises of Anganwadi centre when the petitioner was
on duty. The investigation revealed that the death was
5 WP_29230_2012
NBK,J
accidental, due to consumption of pesticide. The 2nd
respondent-District Collector, directed suspension of the
petitioner; however, the 3rd respondent-Project Director
terminated her services by observing that honorarium-
based posts does not have a suspension provision.
6. It may be noted that even for honorarium-based
posts, the removal from service, on the grounds involving
stigma, requires adherence to the principles of natural
justice, as held in Meenglas Tea Estate (supra). In the
instant case, though the petitioner was placed under
suspension, no notice was issued by the 3rd respondent
before terminating her services. In that view of the
matter, the impugned order dated 12.01.2011 terminating
the services of petitioner is hereby set aside.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The 2nd
respondent-District Collector shall forthwith reinstate the
petitioner. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date: 12.06.2025
Smk
