High Court for State of TelanganaWP/31031/2010allowed no costs

Ch. Ailamma v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh

2015-07-07C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31031 of 2010 DATE: 07.07.2015 Between:

Ch.Ailamma

...Petitioner

and The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others

...Respondents

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI CHIDAGAM SRINIVAS For SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31031 of 2010

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order bearing No.A/144/07, dated 04.10.2010 of respondent No.3 whereby she has dismissed the petitioner from service as Anganwadi worker. The main ground on which the petitioner has questioned her dismissal is that the same was not preceded by a notice and an opportunity of being heard.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has not referred to any notice issued to the petitioner. Further, the impugned order referred to various allegations of omissions and commissions levelled against the petitioner casting stigma. In my opinion, the petitioner was entitled to a notice and an opportunity of being heard before being dismissed on serious allegations.

Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare submitted that several notices were issued to the petitioner in connection with the serious allegations levelled against her. Along with the counter-affidavit, some of the notices have been filed. A perusal of these notices shows that the last of the notices issued to the petitioner was dated 31.10.2008. None of those notices finds a place in the impugned order. This fact shows that the petitioner's dismissal is not in pursuance of those notices. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside. If respondent No.3 feels that departmental action needs to be initiated against the petitioner, she shall issue a detailed show cause notice to the petitioner framing specific charges and after holding an enquiry, she can pass appropriate order. Subject to liberty to respondent No.3 as above, the Writ Petition is allowed.

As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, WVMP.No.2151 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th JULY, 2015.

kvni