Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 417 (AP)

R. Koteswaramma v. Government of AP

2024-04-02

G.NARENDAR, HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT G. Narendar, J. 1. Heard Sri G.V.L.Murthy, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri G.L.Narasimha Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the Respondents. 2. The Appellant is before this Court in this Intra Court appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.11.2022 and rendered in W.P.No.11482 of 2017. The writ petition was preferred praying to set aside the proceedings of the 3rdRespondent which resulted in discontinuing the services of the Appellant/Petitioner as an Anganwadi worker. 3. The parties are referred to by their nomenclature before the Learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge had recorded that there are several complaints against the Petitioner including complaints from beneficiaries, complaining that the benefits under the Anganwadi ICDS scheme and the scheme for providing free nutritious food to pregnant ladies and lactating mothers is not reaching the beneficiaries. It is also recorded by the learned Single Judge that the Petitioner had submitted her resignation and on those counts, the learned Single Judge refused to entertain the Writ Petition and was pleased to reject the same. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is bad, as it has been demonstrated that no letter of resignation was ever submitted by the Petitioner and that the entire proceedings have been vitiated on account of the Respondents not holding any enquiry nor affording any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, thereby vitiating the impugned order. 6. It is further alleged that the Complainant i.e., one Sri Anaparthi Ramesh was inimically placed towards the Petitioner on account of political differences. That the said complainant, who was a Sarpanch, had taken advantage of his office and provoked others to file a complaint against the Petitioner and that no enquiry in a manner known to law has been conducted. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has vehemently opposed the claims of the Appellant and would submit that though a letter of resignation is not forthcoming from the record, it has been convincingly demonstrated before the learned Single Judge with regard to the detrimental nature of the Petitioner's activities and that her omission in ensuring that the benefits of the scheme reaches the beneficiaries has affected the pregnant ladies and lactating mothers. It is further elaborated that the beneficiaries are highly vulnerable class and those who are in dire need of nourishment. 8. In view of the vehemence with which the appeal was opposed, despite the clear fact that no formal enquiry as such was conducted, this Court deemed it appropriate to summon the records. 9. Today, Smt. T. Sri Latha, Child Development Project Officer, Guntur, is present before this Court. 10. We have perused the file which is in Telugu vernacular language. I have had the benefit of my brother's proficiency in the vernacular language and the file has been gone through by my learned brother Sri Justice Harinath N and it is affirmed that an open enquiry was conducted in the presence of villagers, by the authorities and that the enquiry has categorically revealed that the Petitioner was not attentive and was not cooperating for implementation of the scheme, resulting in young children, pregnant ladies and lactating mothers being deprived of valuable nutritious food and thereby resulting in a debilitating effect on their precocious health and thereby defeating the very object of the scheme. 11. That apart, we see that the enquiry has resulted in throwing up a very peculiar circumstance, where the stocks in the possession of the Petitioner are found to be double the quantity of the stocks than reflected in the register/stock books maintained by the Petitioner. 12. Learned Counsel is unable to justify the dramatic increase in the stock maintained by the Petitioner. It goes without saying that the onus was on the Petitioner to demonstrate as to how the quantity of stock is much higher than the quantity mentioned in the stock register? It is not in dispute that the stocks are in the custody of the Anganwadi Worker, and the Petitioner is the Anganwadi Worker. 13. The said circumstance, in our considered opinion adds some substance to the contention that the items were not being fairly distributed to the beneficiaries. In the event the Petitioner was regularly dispensing the benefits, including food items, to the beneficiaries who belong to the vulnerable section of minor children, pregnant ladies and lactating mothers, the available stock would definitely have been equal to the mentioned stocks or even lesser. In the event the Petitioner was regularly dispensing the benefits, including food items, to the beneficiaries who belong to the vulnerable section of minor children, pregnant ladies and lactating mothers, the available stock would definitely have been equal to the mentioned stocks or even lesser. This fact by itself corroborates the allegation leveled against the Petitioner that she was not caring out her duties of feeding the children and the vulnerable section of mothers and pregnant ladies. 14. In fact, this Court has granted ample opportunities to the Petitioner to demonstrate her case. Despite multiple opportunities, the Petitioner had not been able to discard the weight of evidence against her. 15. A perusal of the file clearly denotes that the authorities have carried out an enquiry in the locality, more particularly with the beneficiaries who have categorically asserted that the Petitioner was always found amiss in discharging her duties. 16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would attempt to contend that there are civil disputes between the Complainant and the Petitioner. 17. We have perused the file and it would show not one but several complaints and would also contain a document in the form of Mahzar wherein the beneficiaries have also affixed their signatures thereby asserting the complaints against the Petitioner. 18. Apart from stating that there are civil disputes with one of the Complainants, the Petitioner is unable to point out as to what could be the premise for the other complainants harboring any ill-will or as to why they should wreck vengeance on her. In the event, the Petitioner desires to convince this Court to hold that the action is vitiated by malafides, then the Petitioner was required to make appropriate pleadings. 19. We find the petition remiss of any such pleadings. In that view of the matter also, the said contention would be of no avail to the Petitioner. 20. Lastly, it was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner and that the intervention of politician and political influence is apparent in view of the fact that the Petitioner has been thrown out of services immediately on receipt of the complaint. 21. We have perused the order removing the Petitioner. 22. The list of documents referred to in the proceedings are by themselves indicative of the approach adopted by the authority. 21. We have perused the order removing the Petitioner. 22. The list of documents referred to in the proceedings are by themselves indicative of the approach adopted by the authority. It cannot be gainfully argued today that some of the documents were created for the purpose of this case. The Petitioner had ample and all the time in the world to lodge a protest or atleast state on record the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Appeal lacks merits and accordingly stands rejected. 23. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Writ Appeal, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.