APHC010542472022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 33304/2022 BETWEEN: 1. JAGANNADHAM MURALI MOHAN, S/o. ISRAYEL, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/o. D.No.7 VADDIVANIKUNTA, 3 TEMPLE STREET, MANGAMUR ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN PRAKASAM DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, (PDSCCS LTD.) PRAKASAM DIST 3. THE VICECHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSCCFC LTD., TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PDSCCS LTD., ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 33304/2022 JAGANNADHAM MURALI MOHAN, S/o. ISRAYEL, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/o. D.No.7 VADDIVANIKUNTA, 3RD LANE, OPP - SEETHARAMANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, MANGAMUR ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN PRAKASAM DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, (PDSCCS LTD.) PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. THE VICECHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSCCFC LTD., TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PDSCCS LTD., ONGOLE, PRAKASAM 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 [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO JAGANNADHAM MURALI MOHAN, S/o. ISRAYEL, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYEE, R/o. D.No.7-1057/1, SEETHARAMANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, MANGAMUR ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM ...PETITIONER REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN PRAKASAM DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, THE VICECHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSCCFC THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PDSCCS LTD., ONGOLE, ...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 2 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Proceedings in RC.No. E1/23/2022, dated 23.08.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent, thereby removing the petitioner from the post of MNR (Nominal Macheral Role) Worker in the services of 4th respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without initiating any disciplinary proceedings and on incorrect appreciation of facts and law, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice, settled principles of service jurisprudence and offends Articles 14, 21 and 311 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service in the post of NMR Worker in the services of 4th respondent by paying all attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CH C SATYANARAYANA 2. GANDRALA RATHNA KUMAR SC For APSCCFC LTD 3. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as NMR (Nominal Muster Roll) Worker by the 2nd respondent, on contract basis under daily wages on 03.11.2000. Since, then he was performed his duties with utmost satisfaction of his superiors and there are no adverse remarks from any corner. While so, the 4th respondent issued Notice in Rc.No.E1/23/2022, dated 08.07.2022 to the petitioner alleging that he committed misappropriation of recovery amount of Rs.3,80,970/- which was recovered from SC beneficiaries towards NSFDC Loans and also involved in unaccountable financial transactions with regard to recovery of amount from SC beneficiaries and directed the petitioner to remit the amount collected directly or indirectly and called for his explanation. 2. It is further asserted that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.08.2022 denying the allegations levelld against him and stated that he has not committed any irregularities in remitting the amount collected from the SC beneficiaries into the SC Corporation bank Account and categorically given the particulars of amounts remitted into SC Corporation Loan Account with date wise, receipt number wise and quantum of amount in a tabular format to the tune of Rs.3,93,000/- as against the alleged misappropriation of recovery amount of Rs.3,80,970/- and requested to drop the notice. 4 3. The 4th respondent did not consider the said explanation and issued another show cause Notice dated 13.07.2022 framing certain charges against the petitioner and called upon his explanation to show cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated for unlawful activities and misappropriation of SC beneficiaries recovery amount and directed the petitioner to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations leveled against him and stated that he has not committed any irregularities in remitting the amount collected from the SC beneficiaries into the SC Corporation Bank Account and further requested to drop the said show-cause notice and not to take any coercive steps against him. 4. It is further asserted that the 4th respondent lodged a false complaint dated 17.07.2022 against the petitioner, at Ongole Taluq Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420 of IPC and the same was registered as FIR No.495/222, dated 19.07.2022, in pursuance of the same he was arrested and released after 8 days on bail. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent straight away issued the Proceedings in RC NHo.E1/23/2022, dated 23.08.2022 thereby removed the petitioner from the post of NMR Worker in the services of 4th respondent, due to local village petty politics with ulterior motive and malafide intention to appoint the candidates of local politicians belonged to the ruling party, without considering his reply/ explanation, without giving opportunity of 5 being heard to him, without any authority of law and without proving any misconduct is against the principles of service jurisprudence and infringement of his fundamental right to livelihood and prayed to declare the impugned order as illegal, arbitrary and consequently prayed to reinstated the petitioner into service in the post of NMR Worker in the services of 4th respondent by paying all attendant benefits. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that termination without an enquiry would amounts to stigmatic termination and placed reliance on two Divisional Bench judgments, which are referred hereunder: 1) State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department v. and others v. K. Madhu Phani and another1. 2) Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director and another v. B. Nandeswar Rao2. 6. The Division Bench in both the judgments held that conducting of departmental enquiry is essential and termination without conducting enquiry is a stigmatic termination. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner involved with association of political party leaders which is against to the service of conduct rules and he is facing 4 criminal cases 1. FIR No. 1 2018(1) ALT 125 (D.B.) 2 2014(4) ALT 211 (D.B.) 6 141/2019, u/s 40, dated 15.08.2019 at the Police Station of Nagulupplapadu Mandal, 2. FIR. No. 495/2022 u/s 409, 420 dated 19.07.2022. 3. FIR. No. 508/2022, u/s 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC dated 25.07.2022 and 4. FIR. No. 676/2022 u/s 408 r/w 34 IPC, dated 13.10.2022 at Taluk Police Station, Ongole and all these criminal cases are related to cheating, misappropriation of funds, deceitfulness the administration, criminal intimidation, women harassing, criminal breach of trust and all under investigation by the concerned authorities and removing the writ petitioner in the services of 4th respondent without initiating disciplinary proceedings and on incorrect appreciation of facts and law, is far away from truth and there is no violative of principles of natural justice. 8. It is further stated that in fact writ petitioner is involved various criminal offences and cases are pending before criminal Courts, apart from that enquiry report proved the changes in Departmental enquiry. All the factual aspects are not disclosed by the writ petitioner. The intention of the petitioner that the removal orders were issued to him without conducting enquiry and without following the procedure of law is not correct. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. After considering the arguments of both the counsel for the petitioner and respondents, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as NMR (Nominal Muster Roll) Worker in the services of the 4th respondent, 7 on contract basis under daily wages in the year 1998 and confirmed the appointment on 03.11.2000 by the 2nd respondent and the petitioner was terminated on the ground of misappropriation of funds and basing upon the criminal cases pending against him. As held in the aforesaid judgments, termination without conducting enquiry is stigmatic termination on the part of the petitioner and the respondents cannot terminate the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry. 10. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order Proceedings in RC NHo.E1/23/2022, dated 23.08.2022. The petitioner shall not claim any employment mere setting aside the impugned orders. The respondents are directed to conduct enquiry as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If the respondents fail to conclude the enquiry within the stipulated period, the appointment of the petitioner comes into force without back wages, without any further reference from this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 02.09.2026 Harin 8 161 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 33304 of 2022 Date: 02-09-2026 Harin