Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 23783
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Sujatha, J
Ammu Satyavathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 13220/2020
For the Appellants/ Petitioners: Pulipati Radhika
For the Respondents: GP for Women Dev Child Welfare
Removal from service is justified when the employee is a regular absentee and fails to provide a cogent or non-vague explanation in response to show-cause notices and memos issued by the authorities.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the proceedings dated 12-11-2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which removed them from the post of anganwadi worker. The petitioner contended that the removal was illegal and arbitrary, asserting that their explanation regarding absences and alleged irregularities was not considered by the authorities. The primary issue was whether the removal from service was arbitrary or whether the respondent authorities followed due process in considering the petitioner's explanation. The court observed that the record showed the petitioner was a regular absentee and that the explanation provided was vague and baseless, thereby validating the respondent's decision to remove the petitioner. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to removal from service as an anganwadi worker alleging lack of consideration of explanations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. review of disciplinary memos and the detailed explanation provided by the worker regarding absences. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. validity of removal based on vague explanations and proven regular absenteeism. (Para 6) |
| 4. dismissal of petition and status of the vacant post. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER:
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 12-11-2019 in removing the petitioner from the post of anganwadi worker, Jaggapuram village, Gantyada mandal is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to allow the petitioner to continue as anganwadi worker, Jaggapuram village, Gantyada mandal and set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 12-11-2019 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents or their officers not to interfere with the business of the petitioners or their dealers in respect of cotton hybrid varieties - TADAAKHA (KSCH-207 BG -II) and SADANAND (KSCH- 232 BG-II) on the ground of lack of marketing permission, till 30-09-2020 or till the final disposal of the writ petition and pass.
IA NO: 2 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings till 30-09-2020 or till the final disposal of the writ petition and pass.
The Court made the following:
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:
“to issue writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 12-11-2019 in removing the petitioner from the post of anganwadi worker, Jaggapuram village, Gantyada mandal is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to allow the petitioner to continue as anganwadi worker, Jaggapuram village, Gantyada mandal and set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 12-11-2019 and pass”
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as anganwadi worker for Jaggapuram village, Gantyada mandal, Vijayanagaram district vide orders dated 30.08.2018 of the 3rd respondent after due selection procedure.
3. While the matter stood thus, the 5th respondent issued memo dated 21.09.2019 to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities while performing her duty. On 28.09.2019, the 5th respondent issued another memo calling for an explanation from the petitioner for the same allegations mentioned in the earlier memo; accordingly, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 28.09.2019 without considering which, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 21.10.2019 calling for explanation once again for which, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 25.10.2019 ventilating her grievance. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 12.11.2019 removed the petitioner from the post of anganwadi worker of Jaggapuram village, Gantyada mandal without assigning any reasons. Challenging the said proceedings dated 12.11.2019, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Heard Mrs. Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare.
5. Perused the material available on record. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. The respondent authorities, upon inspection on 10.09.2019, found the petitioner absent at Jaggapuram anganwa
