APHC010198212025 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: 10495/2025 Between: B.Ravi Naik ...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.10495 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 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 Filed Assistant in Muthyalacheruvu 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 Rc.No.F.A/Gandlapenta/H.R/Sri Sathya sai/2024 dt. 24- 02-2025 and conduct proper enquiry and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into his service for the said post as Field Assistant in Muthyalacheruvu 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. Petitioner has been appointed as Field Assistant at Muthyalacheruvu Panchayat, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapuram, Satyasai District, on 27.12.2010. On certain allegations of irregularities, he was issued show cause notice and after conducting inquiry 3rd respondent has passed impugned termination orders vide R.C.No.35/F.A/Gandlapenta/H.R./Sri Satya Sai/2024, dated 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.10495 of 2025 24.02.2025, removing petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent on 03.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned termination order is bad in law, inasmuch as, explanation offered by the petitioner was not considered by 3rd respondent in proper perspective and erroneously come to the conclusion that allegations are found to be proved and taken decision of removal from service. 5. On the other hand, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that as petitioner has already preferred appeal to 2nd respondent, petitioner cannot simultaneously challenge the impugned proceedings before this Court, and that the appeal is being taken up for hearing and will be decided soon. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, and considering the fact that petitioner has already availed remedy of filing appeal before the 2nd respondent, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the matter. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate speaking orders on the appeal 4 HCGR, J W.P.No.10495 of 2025 preferred by petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to him, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 24.04.2025 KBN