APHC010196242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 10702/2025 Between: Meda Janaki Ramaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in ROC No.80/A2/2018 dt 21.03.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent in removing from duties by terminating the contract of the petitioner services as Engineering Consultant and the 2nd Respondent not disposing the Appeal dt 26.03.2024 filed by the petitioner is arbitrary illegal colourable 2 exercise of power and without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Engineering Consultant by renewing the contract period with all consequential benefits and to pass such.…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Service-I appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri.M.S.R Chandramurthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. The petitioner who was appointed as ‘Engineering Consultant’ on 25.03.2010 after proper selection, on certain allegations of irregularities in the course of his service, was issued a show cause notice proposing for disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be terminated from services by the proceedings dated 21.03.2024, issued by the respondent No.3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 on 26.03.2024. The respondent No.2 except for issuing notices on 27.03.2024 and 13.11.2024 calling upon the petitioner to appear for hearing, has not taken further steps to decide and dispose of the appeal. As the petitioner has been removed from service, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned termination order is void in law and as much as the authority who passed order is not competent and also that the order of the removal did not consider 3 the petitioner’s objections in proper perspective and erroneously came to conclusion on the allegations of parties to be true. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submits that as the petitioner already preferred appeal before the respondent No.2, it is not proper to challenge the impugned proceedings once again before this Court which amounts to parallel proceedings and the appeal will be considered and disposed in some time. 6. Perused the record. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner had already filed alternate remedy by filing appeal before the respondent No.2, with the consent of both the counsels, the present writ petition is disposed of at admission stage, by directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within six (6) weeks after offering opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 25.04.2025 RSD 4 100 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.10702 of 2025 Date: 25.04.2025 RSD