Smt. Nagamma vs The Child Development Officer, Deputy Registrar, The President, Bala Vikasa Seva Samithi and Smt. Haladamma

Anand Byrareddy

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.

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.

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would oppose the petition and in support of the statement of objections, would submit that the post of Anganawadi worker was a honourary post and it transpires that the petitioner was under a strong suspicion of having assisted in the theft that was committed in the Centre and it is on this basis that an investigation has been conducted. However, on the report of the Police, the first respondent, had directed the petitioner to be reinstated, On the other hand, it transpires that a large number of villagers had protested the reinstatement of the petitioner and it is in that context that the third respondent had passed a resolution, purportedly of the Bal Vikas Committee, not to post the petitioner, but to appoint respondent no. 4 in her place. Since the first respondent was not in a position to enforce the order to appoint the petitioner, who is only a honourary appointee, has agreed with the decision of the Committee to appoint respondent: no. 4. Therefore, he would submit that there is no infirmity insofar as the negation of the petitioner''s appointment. The petitioner has no vested right to claim reinstatement with back wages in the absence of any statutory or contractual right in this regard.

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.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A is quahsed. The petitioner shall be reinstated as ''Anganawadi Assistant. However, since the appointment of the petitioner was wholly on honourary basis, the question of either the payment of subsistence allowance or backwages, on the principle that she had not worked during the said period, would not arise, but, not to compensate the petitioner at all, would again result in injustice. Therefore, she would be entitled to about 25% of the wages that she would have drawn in the usual course as compensation, which the respondents shall pay to the petitioner on such reinstatement and liberty is granted to hold an inquiry, if necessary, insofar as the allegation against the petitioner is concerned.