\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10060 OF 2019 Between: Ms. B. Sri Lakshmi, D/o. B.P.R. Vital, Aged about 44 years, Flot. No.206-A- Block, Srinivasarao Thota, Opp- ITC, Rishi Valley Homes, Guntur -522004. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Andhra Pradesh State legal Services Authority, Rep. by member secretary. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Chairman cum District Judge, District Legal Service Authority Guntur, District Court Buildings, Guntur town and District. 3. The Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Authority, Piduguralla, Guntur 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 direction, order or writ more particularly by way of issuance of writ of CERTIORARY to call for the records relating to and connected with the orders dt.21.07.2015 terminating the service of the petitioner, which is confirmed by Rl and to set aside the same by declaring those proceedings of the respondent No.2 confirmed by Rl as arbitrary, * illegal unconstitutional and the punishment of termination is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, without conducting any enquiry as it is u -►S’- illegal, opposed to principals of natural justice and also unconstitutional and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to continue as typist cum assistant in the permanent LOK ADALAT under R2 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY (SC FOR APSLSA) The Court made the following: ORDER. APHC010218032019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10060/2019 Between: ...PETITIONER Ms. B. Sri Lakshmi, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI NIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.S. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY (SC FOR APSLSA) The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Typist-cum-Assistant in the office of the Chairman, permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, on a contract for a period of one year in 2008. Her contract period was extended from time to time. In September, 2014, the petitioner was deputed to work in the Mandal Legal services Authority, Piduguralla. J 2 On 02.07.2015, a termination notice was served on the petitioner to - show-cause why her contract should not be terminated on the ground that she had not attended for duty from 06.06.2015 and that her absence had caused much inconvenience in the administrative work of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Piduguralla. This notice also stated that, on 11.06.2015, the petitioner had given an application for grant of medical leave from 06.06.2015 to 20.06.2015. 2. On 06.07.2015, the petitioner submitted her explanation. In this explanation it was stated that, the petitioner, due to her physical inability, could not attend the duty from 06.06.2015 to 20.06.2015 and that she had attended the office on 11.06.2015 and submitted a leave application along with prescribed medical certificate for grant of leave from 06.06.2015 to 20.06.2015. The petitioner stated that her absence was on account of medical reasons and that she should be permitted to continue. It appears that a medical certificate, dated 05.07.2015, has also been submitted. 3. The 2^^ respondent, after receiving this explanation, passed orders, dated 21.07.2015, terminating her services, with effect from 06.06.2015. This order does not refer to the representation dated 06.07.2015, said to have been submitted by the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the 1^' respondent, by way of an appeal, under Rule 17 of A.P State Legal Services Authority Rules, 1999. In this appeal, the petitioner contended that her explanation was not considered and that issues which were not raised in the show cause notice have also been raised in the order of the termination. She contended that such non-consideration of her representation and inclusion of additional grounds would be violative of principles of natural justice. 5. 6. The 1®* respondent, dismissed the appeal, by way of an order dated 26.06.2018. In the appellate order, a view was taken that the services of the petitioner are temporary and that she is not entitled to the protection granted under A.P. Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellate 3 authority took a view that the judgment relied upon, are not applicable as she was only a contract employee. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Srinivasa Basava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Laxmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSLSA appearing for the respondents. 8. Sri S. Laxmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel apart from contesting the matter on merits, would also contend that the writ petition is not maintainable as an alternative of approaching the Hon’ble Chief Justice, as Patron in Chief Under Rule 17 of the A.P State Legal Services Rules, 1999 is available. He would submit that, in view of the alternative remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. In normal circumstances, we would agree with the contentions of Sri S.Laxmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. However, one of the facts remain that this writ petition has been pending before this Court from six years and it would not be reasonable or fair to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice at this belated time. 9. 10. / Accordingly, we reject his contention. 11. A perusal of the show-cause notice would show that the show cause notice had raised only the solitary ground of the absence of the petitioner from 06.06.2015 to 20.06.2015. However, the order passed by the 2""' respondent states that her services were being terminated on account of her absence on occasions by availing casual leaves without prior permission, committing mistakes while typing out orders etc. None of these grounds are found in the show-cause notice. In such circumstances, the order clearly suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. 12. various J 4 Apart from this, the 2^^ respondent, having specifically noted the fact that the petitioner had sought medical leave on 11.06.2015, does not refer to this issue in the impugned order, dated 21.07.2015. This is yet another reason to hold that the order has been passed without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice. 13. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow this writ petition setting aside the order of termination of the 2^"^ respondent, dated 21.07.2015 and the appellate order of the 1®' respondent, dated 26.06.2018. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the petitioner is to be taken back into service, subject to the condition that she performs her duty properly and it would be open to the Authority to take appropriate action in the event of any unsatisfactory service. No costs. 15. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (^Tl^NOFFICER SE To Andhra Pradesh State legal Services Authority, Rep. by member secretary, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Chairman cum District Judge, District Legal Service Authority Guntur, District Court Buildings, Guntur town and District. The Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Authority, Piduguralla, Guntur District. One CC to SRI. SRINIVAS BASAVA Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY (SC FOR APSLSA) Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. VJ £ HIGH COURT DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.10060 of 2019 g 1 <1 FEB 2025 . Current Section . ^f ALLOWING OF THE WRIT WITHOUT COSTS PETITION