IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16806 of 2008 Between: K. Mahakalamma W/o. Balayogi Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam. 2 The Child Development Project Officer (ICDS Project) Pamarru, Pamarru mandal, Krishna District. 3 The SUpervisor Office of The Child Development Project Officer (ICDS Project) Pamarru, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna 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 any writ order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of issuing the impugned charge memo dt. 2-4-2008 by the 3rd respondent Supervisor is colourable exercise of power as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and further set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Anganwadi Worker. She was issued a show cause notice, dated 02.04.2008, by the third respondent. The petitioner was required to explain some lapses and discrepancies noticed by the third respondent. This Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging the show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned memo was issued with a mala ﬁde intention, on account of the fact that the petitioner was approached this Court on an earlier occasion and ﬁled a contempt case. It is stated that the third respondent has resorted to vindictive acts against the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the competent authority has already reinstated the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker on 13.03.2008. A perusal of the show cause notice, dated 02.04.2008, discloses that the petitioner was required to explain about certain allegations, as regards locking of the Anganwadi Center during working hours and discrepancy about the distribution of food items etc. The notice cannot be said to be either mala ﬁde or without jurisdiction. The petitioner had to submit explanation and she can be said to have suﬀered any grievance, if only an orders adverse to her, are passed. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time of ten days from today to submit her explanation, if not already submitted. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ Dt.05.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ