Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 98 (AP)

Nuka Padma Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-06

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2023
ORDER : Since the issue to be resolved in these three writ petitions is the same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of them by this common order. 2. Heard Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 and 17923 of 2021, Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15701, and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for the official respondents in all the writ petitions. 3. For convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the facts in W.P.No.5128 of 2020 are considered. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that she passed 10th class in the year 1999 and later, passed graduation in the year 2005. She applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker to the respondent authorities and the selection committee of the respondent authorities considered her application and appointed her as an Anganwadi Worker on 15.08.2012 to Matalabupeta Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District, and since then she has been discharging her duties as such without any complaint or remarks. While so, the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Sarubujji Mandal, Srikakulam District, 5th respondent herein, issued proceedings dated 10.02.2020 terminating the petitioner from the services of the Anganwadi Worker. The same is under challenge in W.P.No.5128 of 2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, and the District Collector issued the impugned proceedings without jurisdiction and contrary to the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.18, Department for Women, Children (Prog.) Disabled and Senior Citizens, dated 15.05.2015. Under G.O.Ms.No.18, the Committees for the selection of recruitment of Angawadi Workers or Anganwadi Helpers in all Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Project Areas as well as in ITDA project Areas were reconstituted. As per Rule 7 of the said G.O., in respect of ICDS project Areas, the District Collector/Chairperson of DW & CDA will be the Chairperson, and RDO concerned, DM & HO/Additional DM & HO, CDPO concerned and Project Director will be the Members of the Committee, and in respect of ITDA Project Areas, the ITDA Project Officer/Chair person of DW & CDA will be the Chairperson, and RDO concerned, DM & HO/Additional DM & HO, CDPO concerned and Project Officer will be the Members of the Committee. The subject matter of the writ petitions relates to ICDS Projects. The subject matter of the writ petitions relates to ICDS Projects. As such, for the Committee for selecting Anganwadi Workers/Helpers in respect of areas of ICDS Projects, the District Collector is the Chairperson and four others as stated supra are the Members. The learned counsels would submit that as per the Service Law Jurisprudence, no employee be terminated not below the rank of Appointing Authority/Selection Committee. In the present cases, the Appointing Authority is the District Selection Committee as stated above, but the impugned proceedings were issued by the Chairperson and one of the Members of the Committee i.e., the Child Development Project Officer, without having proper jurisdiction, in the absence of any such resolution by the Selection Committee for such termination/removal. i) The learned counsels would contend that the impugned proceedings were issued making an allegation (stigma) against the petitioners without there being any enquiry and without giving reasonable opportunity for determination of such allegation which is against the principles of natural justice and also Rule 9 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules, 1996’). Further, once the authorities unilaterally made an allegation or basing upon a complaint against the delinquents, a deemed enquiry is necessary to prove such allegation. Without conducting a proper enquiry on such allegation with a stigma, nobody can be terminated from services even as per the principles of Service Law/Administrative Law. They would further contend that in the cases on hand no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was provided except issuance of a show cause notice and nothing was followed as contemplated under the Rules, 1996. The learned counsels for the petitioners would further contend that the petitioners have been discharging duties as Anganwadi Workers for more than a decade without any blemish and to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned, but the services of the petitioners were terminated because of political motivation and based on third party complaints. No employee can be terminated after rendering 10 years of continuous service and is entitled for all the procedures as contemplated for a regular employee in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. In support of their contentions, the learned counsels relied upon the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in B.Yogeswaramma Vs. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. In support of their contentions, the learned counsels relied upon the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in B.Yogeswaramma Vs. Collector, Collectorate Office, Srikakulam District, 2017 Law Suit (Hyd) 247 = 2017 (4) ALD 615 as well as the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Marilla Sudeeshnamma Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.12200 of 2015 dated 28.04.2016) and in Ch.Punyavathi Vs. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, A.P. (W.P.No.17995 of 2009 dated 01.04.2016). 5. On the other hand, counter affidavits were filed in all the writ petitions contending that the Child Development Project Officer of ICDS is a member of the Selection Committee, and after prior approval of the Chairman of the Selection Committee i.e., the District Collector, the impugned proceedings were issued. As such, it cannot be said that the impugned proceedings were issued without jurisdiction and not by the competent authority as contended by the petitioners. 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that the impugned proceedings were issued after following due procedure as contemplated by issuing show cause notices to the petitioners and after considering their explanations. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were fully observed in all the cases while issuing the impugned proceedings. He would further submit that the impugned proceedings challenged in W.P.No.15701 of 2020 were issued basing upon the complaints made by the villagers alleging the misappropriation of funds/misconduct while distributing the groceries to the children. Pursuant to that, the respondent authorities got conducted its own enquiry through the concerned officers and after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed misconduct, the present impugned orders came to be passed. He would submit that the services of the petitioners are not regular and do not attract any observance of service rules which are meant for the regular employees of the State Government, more particularly, the Rules, 1996 are not applicable to the case of petitioners. He would further submit that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsels for the petitioners in B. Yogeswaramma case (supra) is not at all applicable to the present cases because the petitioners are not regular employees of the State Government. He would further submit that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsels for the petitioners in B. Yogeswaramma case (supra) is not at all applicable to the present cases because the petitioners are not regular employees of the State Government. In this connection, the learned Government Pleader relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681 . 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present impugned proceedings of termination are without jurisdiction and they were passed below to the rank of the Appointing Authority, is valid and appreciable, in view of the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015 under which for all ICDS project areas, there should be a District Selection Committee consisting of the District Collector as the Chairperson including four other members as the Selection Committee for appointing Anganwadi Workers/Helpers under the scheme. As such, the termination proceedings of the petitioners shall be issued not below the rank of the Appointing Authority i.e., the Selection Committee. Admittedly, there is no resolution passed by the Selection Committee for terminating the services of the petitioners, but in respect of one case, prior approval of the Chairman of the Selection Committee was obtained. 8. The other contentions of the petitioners that the impugned proceedings were issued on the ground of third-party complaints, misconduct and pending criminal cases with a stigma against the petitioners without conducting a proper enquiry, and that making such false complaints against the petitioners by the unauthorised persons and third-party villagers are only because of political rivalry which requires proper enquiry, as envisaged under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996 and also the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in B. Yogeswaramma case (supra) as well as the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Marilla Sudeeshnamma Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.12200 of 2015 dated 28.04.2016) and in Ch.Punyavathi Vs. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, A.P. (W.P.No.17995 of 2009 dated 01.04.2016). 9. In B. Yogeswaramma case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as under: “14. the State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.12200 of 2015 dated 28.04.2016) and in Ch.Punyavathi Vs. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, A.P. (W.P.No.17995 of 2009 dated 01.04.2016). 9. In B. Yogeswaramma case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as under: “14. Before passing an order of termination, the authority who examined as to whether any officer on probation or holding temporary appointment in fact removed from service without initiating any departmental enquiry. The petitioner is no doubt a contract Anganwadi Worker and her appointment as per Rule 9 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules and she was appointed as a Supervisor-Grade-II by entering into a contract. The termination of the petitioner from service with a specific charge of misuse of funds, forgery of documents, which is a stigma affect her future employment. The termination of the petitioner on the ground of misuse of SNP food stock to a tune of Rs.22,98,611/- and also forgery of signatures of the Anganwadi Workers and documents, which clearly amounted to punishment, because the real foundation of the action against the petitioner was the act of misusage because of the alleged misuse which had never been enquired into. 20. In view of the facts discussed hereinabove, we are of the firm view that there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker and subsequently Supervisor Grade-II on a contract basis initially for a period of one year w.e.f. 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. Condition No.10 of the said contract postulates that the services of the petitioner can be terminated by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof and she shall be subject to disciplinary control. No such one month notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of such notice was paid to the petitioner. Condition No.10 of the said contract postulates that the services of the petitioner can be terminated by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof and she shall be subject to disciplinary control. No such one month notice or payment of one month salary in lieu of such notice was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner is covered by Rule 9 of the State and Subordinate Services Rules, which the Tribunal relied upon, but the Tribunal having found that the petitioner cannot be regarded as a regular member of service, as she was appointed under the provisions contained in Rule 9(b), ignored the basic principle that the services of the petitioner were terminated without conducting any regular enquiry and ordered for recovery of the amount under Revenue Recovery Act from her on the ground of fraud, misappropriation, which cast a stigma on the petitioner, which affects her future prospects of employment and she shall suffer a substantial loss of reputation and it may affect her future prospects on account of such an order. The reasons stated by the respondents for terminating her services simply based on the reports of the respondents behind the back of the petitioner, without a regular departmental enquiry are illegal and unsustainable. 22. Further, we find that there is no material to show that the petitioner has been gainfully employed during the termination. Therefore, she is entitled to reinstatement and back wages from the date of her termination till her reinstatement. She is also entitled to continuity of service. It is, however, open to the respondents to take such action against the petitioner as they fit in accordance with law.” 10. In Smt. Marilla Sudeeshnamma case (W.P.No.12200 of 2015 dated 28.04.2016), the learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows: “....... In fact, the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, issued certain instructions to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and others. According to Clause-8, the procedure for initiation of disciplinary action is (1) to call for explanation whenever any irregularities are committed by the Anganwadi Workers, (2) issue of two Memos...... (3) if the explanation is not satisfactory, issue show cause notice, (4) termination of service duly approved by the District Selection Committee. Later, Revised Norms were issued by the Department for recruitment and disciplinary action. (3) if the explanation is not satisfactory, issue show cause notice, (4) termination of service duly approved by the District Selection Committee. Later, Revised Norms were issued by the Department for recruitment and disciplinary action. Thus, from the material on record, it is clear that the 5th respondent is incompetent to terminate the services of the petitioner and obtaining permission from the Chairman of the Selection Committee/District Collector by the Project Officer is not contemplated anywhere in the guidelines. In the absence of any guidelines, order of termination of the petitioner with the approval or consent of the Chairman of the Selection Committee-cum-District Collector, is illegal, since the 5th respondent is incompetent to issue such order and the order of termination is without jurisdiction. xxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx x xx Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, the Chairman of the Selection Committee-cum-District Collector or any competent authority as per guidelines is at liberty to take appropriate action on completion of departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner.” 11. In Ch.Punyavathi case (W.P.No.17995 of 2009 dated 01.04.2016), the learned Single Judge of this Court held thus: “3. The complaint of petitioner in the light of above requirement is that the 3rd respondent issued the impugned order of termination without approval by the District Selection Committee and according to the counsel, the approval is not obtained before terminating the services of petitioner. The counter affidavit admits that the procedure is not fully followed and therefore prays for setting aside the impugned proceeding. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxx 6. I have carefully perused the impugned proceeding in the light of procedure to be followed by the respondents while terminating an Anganwadi Worker. I am satisfied that the third respondent issued the impugned proceeding relying upon the reference Nos.1 to 11 of the proceeding dated 18.08.2009. As there is deviations from the procedure and no satisfactory answer is given in the counter affidavit, the impugned proceeding is set aside and the matter is remanded to the third respondent to place references 1 to 11 before the Committee for taking appropriate decision within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. This Court on 27.08.2009 directed respondents not to fill up on permanent basis the post of Anganwadi Worker of Ungarada Village, Regidi Amudalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 7. This Court on 27.08.2009 directed respondents not to fill up on permanent basis the post of Anganwadi Worker of Ungarada Village, Regidi Amudalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. The order presupposes that temporary arrangement could be made and Anganwadi centre is continuously run by the administration. Having regard to the nature of interim order passed pending the writ petition, it is made clear that the setting aside of the impugned proceeding and remitting the matter back to the third respondent, it shall not be understood that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. But at the same time till further decision is taken, the respondents are directed not to appoint Anganwadi Worker on permanent basis.” 12. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under rule 9 of the Rules, 1996 is valid and sustainable because of the admitted fact that no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was provided to any of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned action disregards the settled principles of Administrative Law as well as Service Law Jurisprudence and 'go bye’ to the audi alteram partem which is the basic principle of Law. 13. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the impugned proceedings were issued after observing the principles of natural justice and also after obtaining prior approval of the Chairperson of the Selection Committee, as such, the impugned proceedings are valid and do not require any interference, is untenable, in view of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015 under which the Appointing Authority for the petitioners is the Selection Committee and mere obtaining prior approval from the Chairperson of the Selection Committee as if the same was done by the Selection Committee may not suffice, in view of the service law jurisprudence that termination cannot be done by the below rank to the Appointing Authority. 14. The further contention of the learned Government Pleader that the services of the petitioners are not regular and hence, the Rules, 1996 do not apply to them, as they are meant for the regular employees of the State Government, is not valid in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in B. Yogeswaramma case. 15. 15. In Ameerbi case (supra) relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 13, 14 and 20 of its judgment as follows: “13. The posts of Anganwadi Workers are not statutory posts. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say that there exists a relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and Anganwadi Workers but it is another thing to say that they are holders of civil post. 14. We are not oblivious to the fact that their presence in their respective villages is extremely important. They are supposed to make significant contribution to the society. They, we understand, are required to carry out a large number of activities, primary amongst them being the welfare of the children. xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx 29. Appointments made under a scheme and recruitment process being carried out through a committee, in our opinion, would not render the incumbents thereof holders of civil post. Our attention has not been drawn to any rule or regulation governing the mode of their recruitment. Some statements in this behalf have been made by the interveners but for the reasons stated hereinbefore, we cannot enter thereinto. A distinction must be made about a post created by the Central Government or the state governments in exercise of their power under Articles 77 or 162 of the Constitution of India or under a statute vis-a-vis cases of this nature which are sui generis. Terms and conditions of services of an employee may be referable to Acts of appropriate legislature. The matter may also come within the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution of India as proviso appended thereto confers power upon the President or the Governor of a State or other authority, who may be delegated with such power, to make rules during the interregnum.” 16. The learned Government Pleader also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in A. Ananthamma Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.8037 of 2019 and batch dated 31.10.2019). 17. The learned Government Pleader also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in A. Ananthamma Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.8037 of 2019 and batch dated 31.10.2019). 17. In Ameerbi case (supra) relied on by the learned Government Pleader, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the posts of Anganwadi Workers are not statutory posts and they have been created in terms of the scheme, but there exists a relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and Anganwadi Workers and the rules which were meant for regular employees of the State Government are not applicable to the Anganwadi Workers. This decision does not apply to the facts of the present cases because the petitioners were terminated with a stigmatic allegation which requires due process of regular enquiry as per the Rules, 1996. 18. The other judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader in A. Ananthamma case (W.P.No.8037 of 2019 and batch dated 31.10.2019) is not applicable to the facts of the cases on hand, since that batch of cases deals with the workers who were appointed under the mid-day-meals scheme without there being any regular selection process. But, in the present cases, the petitioners were selected on regular basis by the District Level Selection Committee and they have been continuing in service for a long time. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion and also in view of the admission made by the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents that prior approval was obtained from the Chairperson of the Selection Committee for issuance of the impugned proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings are lack of jurisdiction, as such per se illegal and arbitrary and the same are liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 10.02.2020 and 26.07.2021 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, and the proceedings dated 09.07.2020 issued by the District Collector, Chittoor, are hereby set aside. The petitioners are entitled to be reinstated into service, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioners by following due process of law as contemplated under the Rules, 1996 and as per G.O.Ms.No.18, Department for Women, Children (Prog.) Disabled and Senior Citizens, dated 15.05.2015. It is open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioners by following due process of law as contemplated under the Rules, 1996 and as per G.O.Ms.No.18, Department for Women, Children (Prog.) Disabled and Senior Citizens, dated 15.05.2015. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.