Karnataka High Court
Parvati W/O Sharnappa Matballi vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 28 June, 2022
Author: S. Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S. Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.200882/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.200882/2022 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
Parvati W/o Sharnappa Matballi,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Anganwadi Worker,
R/o. Devadurga, Taluk: Devadurga,
Dist: Raichur.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Mahantesh Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Rep. by the Director
Women and Child Development Dept.
M.S.Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Deputy Director,
Women and Child Development Department,
Raichur, Dist: Raichur-584101.
3. The Child Development,
Planning Officer (CDPO)
Taluk: Devadurga, Dist: Raichur-584101.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Shivakumar R.Tengli, AGA for R1 to R3)
2 W.P.No.200882/2022
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature
of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 16.02.2019
¸ÀA:G¤gÁ/ªÀĪÀÄ/CAPÁPÀ U˸ÉÃ/CªÀiÁ£Àå/2018-19/3562 passed by
the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-C and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has sought for the following relief in this writ petition :-
a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 16.02.2019 ¸ÀA:G¤gÁ/ªÀĪÀÄ/CAPÁPÀ U˸ÉÃ/CªÀiÁ£Àå/2018-19/3562 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-C;
b) Issue such other wit of mandamus or order directing the respondent No.2 reinstate the petitioner into service as Anganwadi worker at Gourampet-10 Devadurga, District Raichur by considering representation dated 15.05.2019 and 26.07.2021 vide Annexure-D and F respectively.3 W.P.No.200882/2022
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Kendra No.1 Ginigera, Taluka and District Koppal on 31.08.1994. Subsequently, she was transferred from Anganwadi Kendra No.1, Ginigera to Arakerea-2 Anganwadi Kendra, Taluka Devadurga, District Raichur. Thereafterwards, in the year 2018, she was transferred from Arakera-2 Anganwadi Kendra to Gourampet-10 Anganwadi Kendra. When the matter stood thus, the respondent No.2 on 16.02.2019 has issued a suspension order against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no notice whatsoever to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of suspension and though the said order has been passed on 16.02.2019 till date no departmental enquiry has been held as against the petitioner. He also submits that though the petitioner has given a representation on 26.07.2021 to revoke the order of her suspension and reinstate the petitioner into work, till 4 W.P.No.200882/2022 date such representation has not been considered. In support of her case, the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.201660/2021 dated 27.10.2021.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the representation made by the petitioner to revoke the suspension order and reinstate her shall be considered by the Competent Authority expeditiously and appropriate orders will be passed.
6. The material on record would go to show that the order of suspension has been passed as against the petitioner on 16.02.2019 and it is the specific case of the petitioner that till date no enquiry has been held pursuant to the said suspension order and petitioner is without any work and salary eversince 16.02.2019. The petitioner has thereafterwards fled a representation on 26.07.2021 to revoke the order of suspension and reinstate her and even said representation has not been considered by the 5 W.P.No.200882/2022 Competent Authority. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.201660/2021 in the case of Kamble Satish S/o Arjun vs. The state of Karnataka and others disposed of on 27.10.2021 placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and another1 wherein it was held that currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within the said period the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer, has held that since three months had already lapsed since the order of suspension was passed, the respondent- authorities are required to recall the order of suspension and reinstate the petitioner, subject to he participating in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
7. In the case on hand, though the petitioner has already filed a representation before the second respondent to revoke her suspension order and reinstate her into work, till date such a representation is not considered. Under the circumstances, the following :
1
(2015) 7 SCC 291 6 W.P.No.200882/2022 ORDER The writ petition is partly allowed.
The writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure-F dated 26.07.2021 for revocation of suspension order and to reinstate her into work and pass appropriate orders on the same as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn