IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6422 of 2007 Between: 1 G. Veera Venkata Raasi S/o Gopal Krishna R/o Sai Nagar, Chintapalli Visakhapatnam District. 2 E. Rajeswari W/o Krishna r/o Ramalingam Street, Chintapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 P. Peddammi W/o Chinnayya Dora r/o Ravi Manu Pakalu, Chintapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 L. Lakshmi W/o Satya Rao R/o Gudam Pathaveedhi G.K. Veedhi mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5 S. Venkata Lakshmi W/o Raja Rao r/o S. Godugu Mamidi, Chintapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6 R. Ramani Kumari W/o Yugandar R/o Mrugudpalli, G.K. Veedhi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 7 V. Saraswathi W/o Subba Rao r/o Ginjangi Village, G.K. Veedhi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 8 P. Pentamma W/o Raja Rao r/o Dmudu Veedhi, Chintapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam district. 9 G. Tabita W/o Kamanna r/o Varthanapalli Village, Chinthapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Sub Collector, Paderu, Visakhapatnam, District. 2 The Project Officer, ICDS., Chintapalli, Post Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondnet in terminating the services of the petitioners as highly arbitrary and consequently set a side the proceedigns of 2nd respondent No. 34/2006 dated 09-03-2007 and award all consequential benefits andpass such other order or further orders or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6422 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners were appointed as Anganwadi Workers for various villages in Visakhapatnam District on different dates. The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Chintapalli, Visakhapatnam District, 2nd respondent herein, issued separate proceedings, dated 09.03.2007, terminating the services of the petitioners. The same are challenged in this writ petition. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent cancelled the orders of appointment, on instructions issued by the 1st respondent and they were not put on notice, much less an enquiry was conducted. Respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, filed a counter affidavit, stating that on receiving complaints against the individual petitioners, enquiries were conducted and on the basis of the findings therein, the impugned orders were passed. The 3rd respondent got herself impleaded. She is said to have made a complaint against the 5th petitioner to the effect that the latter is not married. The orders passed against the petitioners are identical. In all of them, it is stated that complaints were received against the respective petitioners from the local residents and that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapally made enquiries and submitted report. It is also stated that based upon the report, the 1st respondent issued directions to the 2nd respondent to cancel the appointment of the petitioners and accordingly, they are cancelled. On the face of it, the proceedings are irregular and violative of principles of natural justice. If there existed any allegations against the petitioners, it was obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned to issue show cause notice, indicating the basis of allegation, as well as to enclose the copies of the complaints. It was only then that the affected candidates would have been in a position to submit their explanation. Such a procedure, however, was not followed. The respondents assumed to themselves certain facts, and terminated the services of the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the respondents to issue individual notices to the petitioners, indicating the allegations against them, and to give them an opportunity to explain, after taking them back into service. The respondents shall pay wages to the petitioners from the date of removal from service. The respondents shall also be under obligation to supply the material, on which, they propose to act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 25.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6422 of 2007 Date: 25.07.2008 JSU