4 , ■ APHC010126092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY \ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No: 6457 OF 2025 Between: Sri Chatia Raja Rao, S/o. C. Pullanna, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Assistant Project Director, DWMA, Kanigiri cluster, Prakasam District. R/o.H.No. 89/2- 18-B-5, Venkateshwara Nagar, Revenue ward no.89, Kurnool town, Kurnool District - 518006. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Secretariat Rural Development, Society for Rural Development Services (SRDS), PVS Icon, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 3. The Chief Executive Officer and Director, Society for Rural Development Services, PVS Icon, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 4. The District Collector/District Programme Coordinator, Prakasam District. 5. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency (DWMA) Ongole, Prakasam District. Ongole, ...RESPONDENTS 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 MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents especially action of the Respondent No. 2 herein in issuing Procgs. No 1682/SRDS/PM- HR/2019 dated 19-02-2025 (which was served to the petitioner on 03-03-2025) wherein the petitioner herein was Reverted to the post Additional Programme Officer from the post of Assistant Project Director without considering the explanation dated 25-12-2024 petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 17-12-2024 opportunity of hearing and without any speaking orders, without application of mind as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory, in gross violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Article 16 of the constitution of India and contrary to the settled principles of law and of submitted by the without giving 14 and contrary to the rules made for Society for Rural Development Services and consequently set aside the Procgs. No 1682/SRDS/PM-HR/2019 dated 19-02-2025 issued by the respondent No.2 and by directing respondents to continue the petitioner herein in the post of Assistant Project Director. the lA No: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 suspend the Procgs. No 1682/SRDS/PM-HR/2019 dated 19-02-2025 issued by the respondent No.2 and by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner herein in the post of Assistant Project Director. lA No: 2 OF 202^ Between: The Chief Executive Officer and Director, Society for Rural Services, PVS Icon, Tadepalli, Guntur District. Development ...PETITIONER/3'^'' RESPONDENT AND f 1. Sri Chatia Raja Rao, S/o. C. Pullanna, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Assistant Project Director, DWMA, Kanigiri cluster, Prakasam District. R/o.H.No. 89/2-18-B-5, Venkateshwara Nagar, Revenue ward Kurnool town, Kurnool District - 518006. no.89, ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Secretariat Rural Development, Society for Rural Development Services (SRDS), PVS Icon, Tadepalli District. Guntur 4. The District Collector/District Programme Coordinator Prakasam District. 5. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency (DWMA) Ongole, Prakasam District. (Respondents 2 to 5 are not necessary parties) Ongole, ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dated 13.03.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.6457 of 2025 and to dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.NITESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: ASST.GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI M.S.R.CHANDRA MURTHY, SPL COUNSEL FOR NREGS The Court made the following order: APHC010126092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) lU [3506] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6457/2025 Between: 1.SRI CHATLA RAJA RAO, S/0. C. PULLANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT PROJECT DIRECTOR, DWMA, KANIGIRI CLUSTER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/0. H.NO. 89/2-18-B-5, VENKATESHWARA NAGAR, REVENUE WARD NO.89, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518006. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (SRDS), ICON, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GUNTUR DISTRICT. RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PVS PVS ICON, TADEPALLI, 4.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT COORDINATOR, ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. PROGRAMME 5.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY (DWMA) ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (SRDS), ICON, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GUNTUR DISTRICT. RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PVS PVS ICON, TADEPALLI, 4.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/DISTRICT COORDINATOR, ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. PROGRAMME 5.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY (DWMA) ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 HCGRJ W.P.N0.64S7 of 2025 ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents especially action of the Respondent No. 2 herein in issuing Procgs.No.1682/SRDS/PM- HR/2019 dated 19-02-2025 (which was served to the petitioner on 03-03- 2025) wherein the petitioner herein was Reverted to the post of Additional Programme Officer from the post of Assistant Project Director considering the explanation dated 25-12-2024 submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 17-12-2024, without giving opportunity of hearing and without any speaking orders, without application of mind as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory, in gross violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and contrary to the settled principles of law and contrary to the rules made for Society for Rural Development Services and consequently set aside the Procgs.No.1682/SRDS/PM-HR/2019 dated 19-02- 2025 issued by the respondent no.2 and by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner herein in the post of Assistant Project Director and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 without 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 lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 vacate the interim order dated 13.03.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.6457 of 2025 and to dismiss the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2.GP FOR SERVICES I 3 HCGR,J W.P.No.6457 of 2025 The Court made the following; ORDER: Petitioner is presently working as Assistant Project Director. He initially appointed as Additional Programming Officer on 24.04.2007 and later he was promoted as Assistant Project Director on 09.08.2017 under Career Advancement Scheme. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 17.12.2024 to the petitioner asking him to submit explanation allegations; 1. That of non-disclosure of two criminal was on three cases while his candidature was considered for promotion; 2. He involving in case relating to harassment of women at work place and pendency of Crime No.232 of 2016 at the instance of complaint given employee namely Smt.Sabitha Rani; and 3. Producing fake disability and Schedule Caste Community Certificate. Petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 25.12.2024 refuting all the three allegations. Now, respondent No.2 has passed impugned order dated 19.02.2025. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred present writ petition. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, 2. learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though show notice has been issued with reference to three allegations in particular as set out therein, the impugned order has been passed on completely new set of allegation and that too on the ground that the promotion of petitioner granted ignoring Senior Assistant Programming Officers who were recruited in cause was 4 HCGRJ W.P.No.6457 of2025 the year 2006-07, therefore, respondent No.2 has travelled beyond the contents of show cause. He also further submitted that even with respect to the three charges leveled against the petitioner, the very respondents have conducted enquiry and passed final speaking orders dated 27.04.2023 holding that all the three allegations against him were dropped meaning thereby no action could have been initiated against petitioner in particular reverting him back to Additional Programming Officer. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents on the other hand submitted that the entire exercise of issuing show cause notice dated 17.12.2024 was on account of complaint made before Honourable Lok Ayukta, which has from time to time issued orders calling for reports and in the process as it was found that petitioner has suppressed certain material facts, he was issued show cause notice calling for explanation and after considering objections submitted, impugned order has been passed which cannot be found fault with and tried to justify the impugned order. 5. Both the learned counsel have made respective submissions. 6. The core issue that needs to be considered in the present case is as to whether the reason provided in the impugned order and the enquiry relating to the allegations form part of the show cause notice or not. It is that law that when allegations are made in the show cause notice and an explanation is called for, the authority which is deciding the same has to confine itself to the allegations made therein and cannot travel beyond the same and come up 5 HCGR,J ' W.P.No.6457 of 2025 with an altogether new cause and take a decision. That would clearly amount to violation of principles of natural justice. On going through the impugned order, it is very much clear that the reason for petitioner being reverted to his original post is only on the basis that he has been given promotion by overlooking candidates recruited in the year 2006-2007, who are stated to be seniors to petitioner. The show cause notice does not refer to the aforesaid ground at all in the process of enquiry. Insofar as the allegations made in the show cause notice are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention to the report dated 27.04.2023 where the allegations were found to be not proved. At any rate, this Court is not expressing any opinion on the report dated 27.04.2023 and the allegations set out in the show cause notice but as the allegations on which the impugned order came to be passed, is not found in the show cause notice, the same cannot be sustained. 7. 8. in view of the above, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 19.02.2025. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to proceed with the enquiry in terms of the allegations leveled in the initial show cause notice and in case respondents intend to proceed with any other additional ground, they are at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and after providing due opportunity for submitting explanation and hearing, necessary orders be passed strictly in accordance with law. 6 HCGRJ W.P.No.6457 of 2025 > Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order 9. as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEgi^OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Society for Rural Development Services (SRDS), PVS Icon, Tadepalli, Guntur District, ■'v 3. The Chief 'Executivec Officer and Director, Society for Rural Development Services, PVS Icon, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 4. The District Colfector/District Programme Coordinator, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency (DWMA) Ongole, Prakasam District. 6. One CC to Sri V. Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Services-l, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, SPL Counsel for NREGS. [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 ORDER WP No.6457 OF 2025 5 7Tm2025 I ^ . Current Swwon ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS