APHC010748002011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33362/2011 Between: 1. K.GIRI BABU,CHITTOOR DIST, S/O K.TYAGA RAJAN, TECH.ASSISTANT, MGNREGS R/O IRALA, IRALA MANDAL, CHJITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SECRETARY SRDS, SECRETARY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, O/O COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT, HYDERABAD. NOW AFTER BIFURCATION OF STATES, O/O COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, D.NO. 12-47, PVS ICON, PATHURU CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATHI 522501. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE PROJECT COLLECTOR, DWMA, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRDS, O/O. COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, D.NO 12-47, PVS ICON, PATHURU CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATHI 522 501. 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for records relating to the impugned proceedings dt.30.11.2012 vide Proceedings No. 327-D/SCRD/356/SPM (DM)/2011 of the 4th respondent against orders of the 1st respondent vide proceedings No. 7014/CRD/452/SPM(DM)/2011, dt.22.08.2011 against the orders of the 3rd respondent vide Roc.No. K/1666/2010, dt.05.05.2011 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Technical Assistant (MGNREGS) with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 40531 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with for filing of original impugned order vide proceedings vide Roc.No:K/1666/2010 dt.5-5-2011 issued by the 3rd respondent in this Writ petition in the interest of justice IA NO: 2 OF 2011(WPMP 41470 OF 2011 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate and continue the petitioner in service as Tech assistant by suspending the operation of the impugned proceedings vide Roc.No. K/1666/2010 dt.5-5-2011 issued by the 3rd respondent and the order of the 1st respondent vide Proc No: 7104/CRD/452/SPM(DM)/2011 dt.22-8- 2011 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 2344 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to implead the proposed respondents No. 4 & 5 as respondents No. 4 & 5 in the above writ petition No. 33362 of 2011, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Hon'ble Court may be pleased to amend the writ prayer as "to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for records relating to the impugned proceedings dt.30.11.2012 vide Proceedings No. 327-D/SCRD/356/SPM(DM)/2011 of the 4th respondent against orders of the 15t respondent vide proceedings No. 7014/CRD/452/SPM(DM)/2011, dt.22.08.2011 against the orders of the 3rd respondent vide Roc.No.K/1666/2010, dt.05.05.2011 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Technical Assistant(MGNREGS) with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Instead of to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari call for records relating to the impugned proc vide Roc No: K/1666/2010 dt 5-5-2011 issued by the 3rd respondent without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity and without any enquiry, and the order of the 15t respondent vide proc No: 7104/CRD/452/SPM(DM)/2011 dt 22-8-2011 in rejecting the appeal without considering any of the grounds raised in the appeal, and quash the same holding it as illegal arbitrary and cannot be justified in the eye of law and violation of principles of natural justice and in gross violation of guide lines issued by the Govt and guide lines framed by this Hon'ble in a batch of writ 3 petitions and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Tech Assistant with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2. B V APARNA LAKSHMI 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.33362 of 2011 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 05.05.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner further preferred an appeal before respondent No.4 challenging the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Technical Assistant with effect from 01.04.2006 and was issued a show cause notice with regard to certain irregularities noticed by the respondents. The petitioner submitted his reply; however, the same was not considered by the 3rd respondent, resulting in the passing of the termination proceedings dated 05.05.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, which was dismissed by order dated 22.08.2011. He further submitted that the 1st respondent did not issue any notice before conducting the hearing and unilaterally passed the impugned order dated 22.08.2011. 3. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the 4th respondent, which was also rejected vide proceedings dated 30.11.2012, and that respondent Nos.3 and 4 decided the appeals without issuing any notice to the petitioner. It is 5 also submitted that the 3rd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 05.05.2011 without conducting a proper enquiry and without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and respond to the charges levelled against him. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the 3rd respondent conducted a proper enquiry and that the petitioner was also given ample opportunity to represent and submit his response, and that there was no deviation from procedure insofar as the passing of the impugned proceedings dated 05.05.2011 is concerned. However, it is not in dispute that the impugned orders dated 22.08.2011 and 30.11.2012 were issued without notice to the petitioner. The appellate authorities ought to have passed the orders only after granting an opportunity to the petitioner. 5. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings dated 22.08.2011 and 30.11.2012 deserve to be set aside, and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for considering the appeal afresh after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 6 269 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.33362 of 2011 Dated 09.04.2026 PNS