APHC010174342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 10581/2025 Between: K Venkateswara Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 HCGR, J W.P.No.10581 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.6 in removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, MNREGS, Basinepalli Grama Village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District, vide proceedings of the 6th respondent Rc.No.D4/394/2024 dated 04.12.2024 without considering explanation, without conducting proper enquiry, hearing and passing removal orders as being illegal arbitrary highhanded against the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondent No.6 to reinstate the petitioner in to services as Field Assistant, MNREGS, Basinepalli Grama Panchayath, Bestavaripet Mandal, Prakasam District and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri MSR Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 3. The petitioner having been appointed as Field Assistant at Basinepalli Gram Panchayat, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District in the year 2017, has been terminated from service on certain allegations by proceedings dated 04.12.2024 issued by the 6th respondent. The petitioner has filed appeal before the 3rd respondent on 07.01.2025. 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.10581 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned termination order is passed without considering the petitioner’s explanation in proper prospective and findings recorded by the 6th respondent in coming to conclusion of removing the petitioner from service, which clearly erroneous. 5. Sri MSR Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submits that as the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent, which is pending consideration, parallel proceedings cannot be initiated by filing the present writ petition. However, submits that the appeal will be decided on merits in a reasonable period. 6. In view of foregoing said submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both learned counsel, by directing the 3rd respondent appellate authority to decide the appeal by passing speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 HCGR, J W.P.No.10581 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 24.04.2025 JLV