V. ANNAPURNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) Heard Mr. G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

(3.) The precise case of the petitioner is that she was applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker and appointed vide proceedings dtd. 7/11/1991 for the Surampalem Village. Subsequently she was transferred to Katravulapalli, ICDS Project, Rangampeta vide order dtd. 15/7/1995, again she was transferred to Ramesampeta, Anganwadi Centre, Kotapadu Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District in the year 1999. The name of the petitioner was changed by Gazette publication on 6/2/2003 as Vajrapu Polamma as Vajrapu Annapuran. Therefore the name of the petitioner was changed from the date of her appointment as Anganwadi Worker. The father of the petitioner made complaint against local leader/6th respondent in F.I.R. No. 43 of 2019, dtd. 4/3/2019, which is pending. Therefore at the instance of 6th respondent, the official respondents issued Memos and notices to the petitioner on false and flimsy grounds, for which the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation. Subsequently the 5th respondent issued proceedings dtd. 23/11/2020 terminating the petitioner from services as Anganwadi Worker. Therefore she filed W.P. No. 23561 of 2020 and this Court set aside the impugned proceedings dtd. 23/11/2020 and permitting the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner in proper perspective and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the 5th respondent issued notice dtd. 25/3/2021 along with show-cause notice dtd. 28/12/2018, for which the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation dtd. 3/4/2021 to the 5th respondent. The respondents without considering the explanation of the petitioner again issued same as earlier order to the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition.