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 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, 5th 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 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.

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