NAGAMMA W/O. SRI. GADIGAPPA Vs. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HONNALI TALUK, HONNALI TOWN, NEAR SHANTHA TALKIES, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, NITUVALLI MAIN ROAD, S.B.M. BUILDING, DAVANAGERE CITY, T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was employed as an Anganawadi worker, having been appointed as such on 23.12.1988. The petitioner had rendered service without any blemish or complaint from any quarter. However, the villagers of Konanathale had reported that there was theft in the Anganawadi Centre of the village and it was alleged that the petitioner had committed theft. A report had been transmitted to the Circle Inspector of Police at Honnali, with a request to take action. Consequently, the matter was investigated and the petitioner was kept under suspension. The Police had submitted a report that there was no evidence to hold that the petitioner had committed theft in the centre. Thereafter, respondent no. 1, namely, the Child Development Officer had issued a communication to the third respondent to take the petitioner back to duty. Despite the communication, the petitioner was not taken back to duty, but a resolution was said to have been passed by the third respondent to appoint the fourth respondent to the post of Anganawadi Assistant. The petitioner immediately made a representation on 27.2.2008, requesting that she be reinstated with back wages to the post of Anganawadi Assistant. Respondent no. 1 however, resiled from the earlier version and appointed respondent no. 4 to the post of Anganawadi Assistant as per order dated 1.3.2008. Respondent no. 1, therefore, abdicated his office by succumbing to the dictates of respondent no. 3, who as per the resolution has chosen to appoint respondent no. 4, notwithstanding that the petitioner was absolved of the allegation of theft. It is in this vein that the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner would amplify on the circumstances and would urge the grounds in support of the writ petition to seek appropriate directions for reinstatement and for back wages.

(3.) HAVING regard to the circumstance that the petitioner had discharged her services for over twenty years as an Anganawadi Assistant and it is on mere allegation of theft that the petitioner had been placed under suspension and notwithstanding the police having filed a report, to state that there was no evidence to conclude that the petitioner was involved in the theft of articles from Anganawadi Centre, respondent no. 3 having succumbed to the pressure brought by the villagers to appoint respondent no. 4 in the place of the petitioner, would be highly irregular. The petitioner having discharged the duties of an Anganawadi worker, no doubt in a honourary capacity, would be entitled to be continued as such when there is no material found against her as to her involvement in theft.