IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3880 of 2008 Between: Smt. Gannamani Lakshmi, W/o. Rambabu, in Urban Health Centre, Tanuku, r/o. 12-66-12, Old Town, Tanuku, West Godavari District, AP ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat. 2 The Commissioner, Health, Medical & Family Welfare, Sultanbazar, Koti, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, West Godavari District. 4 The District Medical & Health Officer, West Godavari District., Eluru. 5 The Co-odinator, Urban Helath Centre, 11st Ward, N.G.O.'s Colony, Tanuku, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the suspension Notice issued by the 5th Respondent vide Memo Notice UHC 03/07, dated 05-2-2008, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, equity and conscience besides also violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the Notice of suspension issued vide Memo Notice UHC 03/07, dated 05-2-2008 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential beneﬁts in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SREE RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents 1,2 & 4.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr. A. Veeraswamy Counsel for respondent No.3: G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 3880 OF 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the show-cause notice issued by the 5th respondent vide Memo No. UHC 03/07 dated 5.2.2008 suspending the petioner – Community Organizer pending enquiry into certain allegations made against her, as illegal and arbitrary. It appears, the petitioner was working as Community Organizer in the Urban Health Centre of Tanuku town in West Godavari District since 1.12.2000 and she has been trained in this regard. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent placed her under suspension without any valid and tenable reasons besides not having any authority or jurisdiction. Further, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent requesting him to direct the 5th respondent to drop suspension proceedings issued against the petitioner on 14.2.2008 but till date no action has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in Tanuku town, a Society called Jathiya Vedika, registered under the Registration Act, was entrusted with the work under the Urban Health Programme Scheme and the petitioner was appointed as a Community Organizer, but suddenly her services were placed under suspension without any reasons whatsoever. He further contended that ﬁrstly, the 5 th respondent has no authority to do so and, secondly, no reasons as such were furnished for placing the petitioner under suspension. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent Sri K. Veera Swamy, on the other hand, strenuously contended that under the Community Health Scheme as many as 192 Municipalities were identiﬁed for establishing Urban Health Centres and Tanuku Municipality is one such Municipality where Urban Health Centre was located through Non- Governmental Organisation, named as Jathiya Vedika. The said Non-Governmental Organisation is supervised by the 5th respondent and it is provided with funds at the end of every quarter, if the performance of the Centre was satisfactory and certiﬁed as such by the District Level Committee. According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner was appointed by him and, therefore, he has got every authority to suspend her from service, whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 5th respondent has no authority whatsoever. However, he submits that in this regard a representation has been made by the petitioner before the District Level Committee on 14.2.2008 ventilating her grievance including the challenge as to the jurisdiction of 5th respondent in keeping her under suspension. Be that as it may, leaving the question of jurisdiction of 5th respondent in suspending the petitioner pending enquiry open, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent - District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru to dispose of the representation purported to have been ﬁled by the petitioner on 14.2.2008 in this regard, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to her. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 17-09-2008. MVB.