APHC010275482022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 29 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17607/2022 BETWEEN: 1. PEDDINTI TUSHARA, WIFE OF PEDDINTI SURYANARAYANA CHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI MADDI ANJANEYASWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM, GARVAIGUDEM, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVAR DITRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI MADDI ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, GURAVAIGUDEM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17607/2022 TUSHARA, WIFE OF PEDDINTI SURYANARAYANA CHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI MADDI ANJANEYASWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM, GARVAIGUDEM, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVAR THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI MADDI ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, GURAVAIGUDEM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO TUSHARA, WIFE OF PEDDINTI SURYANARAYANA CHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI MADDI ANJANEYASWAMYVARI DEVASTHANAM, GARVAIGUDEM, JANGAREDDYGUDEM ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVAR THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI MADDI ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, GURAVAIGUDEM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to and in connection with the impugned termination orders issued in Letter No.8/2017 dated 02.06.2022 by the 4th respondent and set aside the same by declaring the same as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India and also violation of A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1991 and also in violation of Principles of natural justice and consequently directing the respondents, particularly the 4'11 respondent to reinstate the petitioner into duty forthwith with all service and monetary benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS AR) 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The 2nd respondent herein issued proceedings in D.DisNo.A1/11025(40)/13/2021-1, dated 22.04.2021 appointing the petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on consolidated pay @ Rs.13,000/- per month. Later the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in regular pay scale in terms of the orders of the 4th respondent vide proceedings in RC No.8/2017 dated 23.04.2021. The 4th respondent-Executive Officer through impugned letter No.08/2017, dated 02.06.2022, has terminated the services of the petitioner relying on the G.O.Ms.No.350 General Administration (Ser-A Department dated 30.07.1999. The purport of the G.O., is that married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment, provided, spouse of the deceased employee is dependent on the married daughter and subject to satisfying, the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time. And the petitioner suppressed the fact that her husband is discharging duties as Upa Pradhana Archaka in regular pay and obtained the compassionate appointment fraudulently. Challenging the said impugned proceedings dated 02.06.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the petitioner herein, who is the dependent on her husband died in harness, made a representation on 01.10.2018 to the respondents seeking 4 employment to her daughter on compassionate grounds, as she is illiterate and she did not have any income and she is dependent on her daughter. The said representation was rejected by the authorities and the mother of the petitioner herein filed W.P. No.929 of 2020 assailing the rejection order for appointment to her daughter-petitioner herein, on compassionate grounds and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2019 and directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner herein, on compassionate grounds as the married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment and there is no such suppression as alleged by the respondents for terminating the services of the petitioner on the said ground and the said termination is not only bad and illegal and is contrary to rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, The procedure for imposing major penalties is prescribed under Clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 is prescribed in Rule 20. Rule 20(1) prohibits imposition of the penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 except after an enquiry is held in the manner specified in Rules 20 and 21. The action to be taken on receipt of the report, pursuant to the enquiry held under Rule 20, is prescribed in Rule 21 in the present case there no enquiry was conducted and no personal hearing was given and relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and others1 and an 1 2011 (11) SCC 458 5 order in WP No.15766 of 2019 to strengthen his argument saying that “that no employee can be terminated from services without giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee.” 3. The respondent authorities have terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s husband was serving as Upa Pradhana Archaka in the 4th respondent temple and the petitioner has suppressed the said fact, obtained the compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not suppress any fact and the compassionate appointment was obtained procedurally on the finding arrived by this Court that a married daughter is entitled for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds. Agreeing the respondents’ argument would amount doubting the High Court order. 5. Per contra Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation why the service of petitioner should not be terminated from the post given that the petitioner obtained compassionate appointment by suppressing the fact that the petitioner’s husband is serving as Upa- Pradhana Archaka in the 4th respondent-temple and the petitioner submitted her explanation on 29.05.2022, and the respondents have 6 not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, consequently the petitioner was terminated from services as the petitioner has suppressed the facts that her husband is serving as an Upa-Pradhana Archaka at the 4th respondent-temple, which constitutes fraud, therefore, the petitioner’s services were terminated after following due procedure of law. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that the respondents have issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explanation and the petitioner submitted explanation to the authorities. The said explanation was neither considered nor addressed in the order. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure for termination of services, prescribed under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, 1991. Consequently, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the respondents are directed to conduct proper enquiry as prescribed under Rule 20 of CCA Rules, and pass appropriate orders after conducting the detailed enquiry, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned termination order dated 02.06.2022 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to conduct a regular enquiry and to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 7 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant service benefits. However, the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement until the disposal of the enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 29.07.2026 Harin 8 94 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 17607 OF 2022 Date: 29-07-2026 Harin 9 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE: W.P. No. 17607 of 2022 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 10. 29.07.2026 TRR, J The Writ Petition is allowed. [vide separate order] ______ TRR,J Harin