> IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7715 OF 202^ Between: R Bhavani Prasad, S/o. P. Venkata Ramana, aged 26 years, Occ: PM ^vAitendant/Mortuary Attendant (Out Sourcing), O/o. Government Medical College Rajamahendravaram. East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director Of Medical Education, Hanumanpeta Vijayawada,Kri shna District. 3. The District Collector/Chairman, East Godavari / District,Rajamahendravaram. 4. The District Coordinator of Hospital Services, East Godavari District, Kovvur. / 5. The Superintendent/AddI DME. Government General Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 6. The Principal / AddI DME, Government Medical College Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. .// ...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 proceedings Vide R.c. No.Spl/GMC,RJY/2025 dt. 19.03.2025 of the 6*^ respondent is against the principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary contrary to the procedure ¥ contemplated under ARCS (CC and A) Rules 1991 and violative of article 14, 21 of Constitution of India, set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as Mortuary attended by suspending the proceedings Vide R.c. No.Spl/GMC,RJY/2025 . dt. 19.03.2025 of the 6**^ Respondents pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S. APPADHARA REDDY - Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010151292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7715/2025 Between: P. Bhavani Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S.APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Vide Rc.No.Spl/GMC, RJY/2025, dated 19.03.2025, of the respondent is against the principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the procedure contemplated under A.P. CS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, and violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the same and to pass....” CGR, J. W P.No.7715 of 2025 Heard Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner 2. and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3. In pursuance to the Notification No. 14/2022, dated 28.05.2022 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad for recruitment of various posts, including the post of “Post Mortem Assistant”, on contract and outsourcing basis, petitioner got selected and was appointed by proceedings Rc.No.221/A2/2022, dated 27.06.2022 issued by the respondent. Petitioner was transferred and posted at 6'^ respondent Hospital by proceedings in Rc.No.2060/E2&E3/2023 dated 05.07.2023. Based on allegation that petitioner has taken bribe during discharge of his duties at mortuary, he came to be terminated from service by impugned proceedings in Rc.No.Spl./GMC, RJY/2025 dated 19.03.2025, issued by the 6*^ respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said 4. termination order is without any prior enquiry, show-cause and affording due opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, the same is bad in law. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents took time on 25.03.2025 to get instructions and today, reported that he is still awaiting for instructions. CGR, J. W.P.No.7715of 2025 f 6. On perusal of impugned proceedings, dated 19.03.2025, it does not refer to issuance of any prior show-cause notice or allowing petitioner to submit explanation and that was any enquiry conducted before the major punishment of removal from service is ordered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar\ in particular, drawn attention of this Court to para. 19, which reads as under: “19. The services of the respondent have been determined solely on the ground of misconduct as alleged but without holding any regular inquiry or affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The termination order has been passed on the basis of some report which probably was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.” The impugned order reads that at the instance of Collector and District Magistrate, the 6^^ respondent has terminated petitioner on the 8. allegations that he has taken bribe. Though it refers to some enquiry li seems to have been conducted and report submitted by Additional ] District Collector and O.S.D. to Government Teaching General Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, such report was never furnished to the petitioner 2024 see OnLine Se 2282 CGR. J, W.P,No.7715 of 2025 S before passing the impugned termination order. Even if enquiry was ordered against petitioner, the basic requirement being that petitioner should have been issued show-cause notice calling upon him to appear before the enquiry officer for coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled against petitioner are proved. The procedure that is adopted by the respondents appears to be strange and without any enquiry straightaway imposed the penalty of removal from service. 9. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned proceeding in Rc.No.Spl./GMC,RJY/2025, dated 19.03.2025, issued by the 6**^ respondent, is set aside and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, this will not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh enquiry regarding the allegations made against the petitioner by following due process of law. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- A. ViJAYA BABU ASSJSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, /I. The Special Chief Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District. ,2. The Director Of Medical Education, Hanumanpeta Vijayawada Krishna District. 3. The District Collector/Chairman, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. 4. The District Coordinator of Hospital Services, East Godavari District Kovvur. , 5. The Superintendent/Addl DME. Government General Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. ,6. The Principal / AddI DME, Government Medical College Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 7. One CC to Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED;02/04/2025 ORDER % WP.No.7715 of 2025 o fe 0 3 APR 20’5 Current Seetion 'ky ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS