APHC010192482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 10070/2025 Between: M.Marappa ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M HEMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 HCGR,J W.P.No.10070 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 3rd respondent thereby removed the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant in Kadiri kunta palli Panchayat of Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapuram, Satyasai District, as illegal, arbitrary discriminatory violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violation of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the 3rd respondent to set aside the proceedings vide R.C.No.CRD/17008/F.A/HR/Kadiri/ 2024 dt3-2-2025 and conduct proper enquiry and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into his service for the said post as Field Assistant in Kadiri kunta palli panchayat of kadiri Mandal, Ananthapuram, Satyasai District and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Ms M.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5 and Smt B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Kadiri kunta palli Panchayat of Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapuram, Satyasai District, on 05.01.2011. Initial appointment was for a period of one year and later, the same was being extended from time to time. Based on certain allegations, after conducting 3 HCGR,J W.P.No.10070 of 2025 enquiry, the 3rd respondent by proceedings vide Rc.No.CRD/17008/FA/HR/ Kadiri/2024 dated 03.02.2025 removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent on 24.02.2025 in terms of Clause 13(C) of the Field Assistant Human Resource Policy, which is stated to be pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order does not take into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner in proper perspective and without appreciating the explanation offered, the 3rd respondent has erroneously come to a conclusion that allegations have been proved and petitioner was removed from service. 5. Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5, opposed the aforesaid submissions and contended that as the petitioner has already availed remedy of appeal before the 2nd respondent, instead of pursuing the appeal, filing of writ petition amounts to parallel proceedings, which cannot be maintainable. 6. Having regard to the fact that petitioner has already availed alternative remedy of appeal before the 2nd respondent, in view of pendency of said appeal, writ petition is not appreciated by this Court on going through merits of the matter and test the order passed by the 3rd respondent. 7. In view of the same, it would suffice to dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the appeal 4 HCGR,J W.P.No.10070 of 2025 preferred by the petitioner, by affording him an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 22.04.2025 KBN