R[l[fl' v. caused death of master S. Revanth aged 4 years as

Petition Under si.)ction 151 CPC praying that in the ci!.Cunls;ta tce:; stated in the affidavit file3 in s:pport of the petition, the High Court may t e pleased to direct the Respcndert,r not to issue notification for appo ntmr:nt rrf An$anwadi Helper of Chithcni (.'lrr:laka Village of Tekulapally ICDS I)roierct' iudhimalla of Khammam p;5111,11 p6 rrriing disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petilirner : SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RA() CounselfortheResl:ondents:GPFORWOMENDEVELOPMENT''\NDCHILD WELFARE The Court made the following ORDER I I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGES H BHEEMAPAKA UIRIT PETITION No.292BO of 20L2 ORDER: The petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe, and a postgraduate degree holder (M.A.). She was appointed as an Anganwadi Helper in Chithoni Village under the Tekulapally ICDS Project] Sudhirnalla, Tekulapally Mandal, Khammam District, through a memo dated O5.O8.1994, and has been rendering her services satisfactorily since then. It is her case that on

16.0l.2OLl, a 4 years old child (S. Revanth), accidentally consumed a pesticide and died within the prernises of the Anganwadi Centre. Upon receiving a complaint from the child's father, the Police registered a case vide FIR No. Ol/2011 dated Ol.O7.2Ol1 under.section 174 Cr.P.C. and conducted an investigation, and frled a final report stating that the death was accidental due to consr.rrnption of insecticide poison. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent authority did not give opportunity to submit explanation to the camse of death. Even respondent authority did not issue any notice prior to terminating her service. She further states that the post of Noon MeaI .s \ 2 \\, 29210_2012 NBK,J Organize' ,tho lgh not a service under Article llO ) I"ules' is a perblir: employment' and hence 13111rval on miscondt]<:1, l{rounds carrying Stigma requires| ac;herence to the prin<r.i1>les of natural justice'. Petitioner relje s on the jrrdgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenglas Tea Estcrte us. li'lorkrnen (AIR 1963 SC 1719'l' an'l r:ortends that a porson must be informed of the charger;' rlllorved to cross-exalrrirl e , and grvgp a charce to rebut e'r'i'Cencr:; but' in the p.reserl case,,no such fair enqurry was; co nducted. The pet.it-iorr:r contends that the terminatior of her l:r, the 3'd respondent-Projec t Dirr:ctrrr on servlces 12.Ol .2O L 1 lvas illegal and contrar5r i.o t.ne f )istrict Collector,srlirectionsdatedoS.ol.20ll,r'vntchonly orderedht:rsuspensionpendingenqlirl"lhr:was terminated 'rr ithor.rt notice, opportunity' rrr lny erlquiry' violating r\rti:les 14, 21, and 3O9 of the CcrLstitution of Ind.ia. .lhe petitioner also submits that st bsequent reports :.nc:l -: ding the District Collector's not: file emd the Tahsildar's t'r:port d'ated 29'06'2oll' stales tha- she was not negligt:r-r t in relation to the alleg'ed Lnr :idr:nt on O6.O1.2ril l. l ;u-rd the reports attribute negliger:ce to the J wP 29230_2012 NBK.J villagers and confirm that the petitioner diligently performed her duties. Despite this, the District Collector failed to reconsider the termination of petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Governrnent Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while rnaking submissions on the lines of the writ afhdavit, contends the 2nd respondent-District Collector rnerely suspended the petitioner, pending enqttiry proceedings; but the 3.d respondent, without issuance of notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner terrninated her services. He contends that the police authorities sr-rbmitted a detailed report stating that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in regard to the incident of O6.0 1.2O 1 1; and terminating the services of petitioner, is therefore illegal and arbitrar5r. t 4 \1 '_29!30_2012 NBK,J

4. Lealtted -iovernment Pleader, relying 'rn '-tre co -rnter affidavit 'iie,:l by respondent No'4, sr..b rritr; t ral' the negligencc: ':;1' f 'etitioner lead to the death rf :rn i nnocent child; and tht, 2^a respondent insffucted the suspension of petitioner; :r owever, since these are hon orar'Lrtl n-llased posts, st-rsp(llrsion provision was not ap'plit;zrl>l e' It is that the Tahsildar ';f Tek ul:rpa-lly further :ont€rlded Mandal was irppointed.as the enquiry c'fficer' ard on 29.06.20) 1, r.he Tahsildar reported that thr: p3tir'ioner resides irL K :thagud.em and freqr'rently vi sits th': oentre brrt nepJer:t,; her duties. On 15'O8'20 1tl, tht: 2nd respondent tt:','iewed the matter and, fincing th: lapses grave, upl-rel j the termination' Thereafter' the ['ost was renotifierl on O5.O8.2O12, and a new Ang anrrrerrll \['orker was appointt. <1 on 15.11-2OI2. 5. CorL';ide 'r-rng the submissions of both the o rrties, it may be ,:Lott: J that the petitioner was tr:rm irlar ed frorn service oir i1(. (:()Llnt of the death of a child (age<l 4 Fears) in the prernrses :f Anganwadi centre when thr': pe titi'>nt:r was on duty. 'I'h e investigation revealed that the dt ath was , accidental, due to consurnption of pesticide. The 2.a respondent-District Collector, directed suspension of the petitioner; however, the 3.d respondent-project Director terrninated her services by observing that honorarium- based posts does not have a suspension provision.

6. It may be noted that even for honorarium-based posts, the removal from service, on the grounds involving stigma, requires adherence to the principles of natural justice, as held in Meenglas Tea Estate (supra). In the instant case, though the petitioner was placed trnder suspension, no noticg was isslred by the 3.d respondent before terminating her services. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.O1.2O11 terminating the services of petitioner is hereby set aside.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is atlowed. T}'e 2na respondent-District Collector shall forthwith reinstate the petitioner. No costs. Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. t ,-\ //TRUE CO"(D Sd/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principr, ,".flr, for women and Child D 2. The District Collector/ Chairman of Women and Child, Development Agency, of Andhra Pradeshet Hyderabad. ent, Secretariat, State el pm Khammam.

3. The Project Director of Women and Child Development, Khammam. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project,, Sudimalla, Khammam District. j ,ry : ih#^?Sffiiil:+ii#[ilJf i :\'# i ^* ; [g is5iiilli SA PVL b d t , !r{l HIGH COURT DATED: 1 2 tOOl2025 I I 3 oo Jtr.2r2, I T ! )k ,l-r.':r;: ;ii.:-. , ::'. .- --.- ORDER WP.No.29230 of 2012 ALLOWINCi THE W.P WITHOIJT (]OSTS. @*''- x# I f a a