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.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRSENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 5128 OF 2020

Between:

1. Nuka Padma Kumari, W/o S Nageshawara Rao, Aged about 35 years,

Occ. Anganwadi Worker, Mathalabupeta . Vi llage , Sarubujjili M an d al ,

Siddhantham.post,Srikakulam District, A P.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND:

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Velagapudi,

Amaravathi,

Guntur District.

2. The Director of Women and Child Welfare, Government of Andhra

Pradesh, Jampani Towers, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

3. The District Selection Committee of Anganwadi Workers, Srikakulam,

Rep. by its Chairman and District Collector.

4. The Project Director, ICDC Project, Srikakulam.

5. The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Sarubujjili,Mandal

Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD

WELFARE(AP)

The Court made the following: ORDER

2023:APHC:1470

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION Nos. 5128 & 15701 of 2020 and 17923 of 2021

COMMON 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

2023:APHC:1470

2

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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, 5

th 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

2023:APHC:1470

3

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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. 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.

2023:APHC:1470

4

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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

2023:APHC:1470

5

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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. Collector, Collectorate Office,

Srikakulam District1

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,

1

 2017 Law Suit (Hyd) 247 = 2017 (4) ALD 615

2023:APHC:1470

6

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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,

2023:APHC:1470

7

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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 (1 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. Ameerbi2

.

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

2

(2007) 11 SCC 681

2023:APHC:1470

8

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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 (1 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).

2023:APHC:1470

9

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

9. In B. Yogeswaramma case (1 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

2023:APHC:1470

10

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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.”

2023:APHC:1470

11

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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. 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

2023:APHC:1470

12

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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

2023:APHC:1470

13

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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. 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

2023:APHC:1470

14

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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

2023:APHC:1470

15

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in B.

Yogeswaramma case.

15. In Ameerbi case (2 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

2023:APHC:1470

16

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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. In Ameerbi case (2 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

2023:APHC:1470

17

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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

2023:APHC:1470

18

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

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. No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

____________________________________

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

6

th January, 2023

Note: LR copy be marked.

 (b/o)

 cbs

2023:APHC:1470

19

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION Nos. 5128 & 15701 of 2020 and 17923 of 2021

6

th January, 2023

cbs

2023:APHC:1470

20

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

Writ Petition Nos. 5128 & 15701 of 2020 and 17923 of 2021

Between:

N. Padmakumari .. Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Women & Child Welfare

Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,

Guntur District and others .. Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 06.01.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

 may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

 marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No

 see the fair copy of the Judgment?

__________________________________

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

2023:APHC:1470

21

NV,J

W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 & batch

*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

+Writ Petition Nos. 5128 & 15701 of 2020 and 17923 of 2021

% 06-01-2023

# N. Padmakumari .. Petitioner

Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Women & Child Welfare

Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,

Guntur District and others .. Respondents

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:

! Counsel for petitioner : Sri M. Krishna Rao

^ Counsel for respondents : The Government Pleader for

 Women Development and

 Child Welfare

? CASES REFERRED :

1) 2017 Law Suit (Hyd) 247 = 2017 (4) ALD 615

2) (2007) 11 SCC 681

2023:APHC:1470