IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12735 OF 2025 Between: M Arjuna Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao Age44 years, Occ: Field Assistant (Removed) R/o Bogireddipalli Village Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna Dist. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Rural Development Department, Secretariate, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The District Coliector-curh-Chairman District Water Management Agency, Krishna Dist., at Machilipatnam. 3. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency Machilipatnam Town, Krishna Dist. 4. The Programme Officer/ Mandal Parashid Development Officer MGNREGS, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna Dist. : ...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 a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in R.C.NO.80/A2/2018 dt20-07-2024, wherein permanently removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant working at Bogireddipalli Gram Panchayat, Machilipatnam Mandal of Krishna Dist., without following the procedure as contemplated under FAHRP (Filed Assistant Human Resources Police) issued vide circular N0.666/EGS (P)/2012 dated 0&:ii’1,2013 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order dt 20-07-2024 by declaring that hg petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as Filed Assistant with all • V ’f’ # consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspended the proceedings issued by the 3RD respondent R.C.N0.80/A2/2018 dt;20-07-2024, with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Filed Assistant, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 3: SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY (SC FOR MGNREGS) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G SRINIVASULA REDDY The Court made the following: 0(RDER APHC010236532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE honourable SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12735/2025 Between: M. Arjuna Rao ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M.M.M. SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 GP for PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “...to issue a writ or direction, preferably, writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 3'^'^ respondent vide proceedings in R. C.No. 80/A2/2018, dated 20.07.2024, wherein permanently removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant working at Bogireddipalli Gram Panchayat, Machilipatnam Mandal of Krishna District, without following the procedure as contemplated under Filed Assistant Human Resources Policy (for short “the F.A.H.R. Policy”), issued vide circular No.666/EGS(P)/2012, dated 08.01.2013, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of principiss of natural justice and consequently, set aside the CGR, J. W.P.No 12735 of 2025 order dated 20.07.2024 by declaring that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as Filed Assistant with all consequential benefits and pass....” 2. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner: learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for 1®* respondent; Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for MGNREGS, appearing for respondents 2 and 3; and Sri G.Srinivasulu Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, for 4**^ respondent. 3. Petitioner has been appointed as Rozgar Sevak for Bogireddypalli Gram Panchayat in the year 2012 under MGNREGS. Based on certain allegations, he was issued show-cause notice. dated 06.07.2024 calling upon him to submit explanation on the charges stated therein. The said show-cause notice provided petitioner to submit explanation within 48 hours. Petitioner has submitted explanation on 10.07.2024 refuting the allegations. The 3"'^ respondent has in no time passed impugned order, dated 20.07.2024 holding that charges against the petitioner are proved and petitioner has been permanently removed from service. 4. Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that issuance of show-cause notice and calling upon CGR, J WP.No.12735of2025 petitioner to submit explanation within 48 hours is clearly in contravention to Clause 13(3) of the F.A.H.R. Policy and further even the impugned order also does not specify any reasons for coming to conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel 5. appearing for respondents 2 and 3, placed on record written instructions, however, the factum of granting 48 hours for submitting \ explanation is not d.sputed. When provisions of the F.A.H.R. Policy provides for time frame for submitting explanation and thereafter, completing enquiry, it is incumbent upon the 3'^^ respondent to follow the same. 6. In the present case, as only 48 hours is provided for submitting explanation, which is clearly in contravention of the aforesaid Policy and. even otherwise, it is not possible for anyone to submit explanation within such short period, and on this sole ground, the writ petition has to succeed. 7. Under these circumstances, the impugned show-cause notice and the consequential termination orders are set aside, respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. 8. The CGR, J W.P.No.12735 of 2025 However, it is left open for respondent to initiate afresh, if they so desire in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration any, in this case shall stand closed. proceedings if Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER f To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Rural Development Department, Secretariate, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The District Coliector-cum-Chairman District Water Management Agency, Krishna Dist., at Machilipatnam. 3. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency Machilipatnam Town, Krishna Dist. 4. The Programme Officer, Mandal Parashid Development Officer MGNREGS, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna Dist. 5. One CC to Sri M M M Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for ServicesHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri M S R Chandra Murthy, SC for MGNREGS, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI G SRINIVASULA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 anoS^ S 12JUH2(H5 '^^£?spatch^ ORDER WP.No.12735 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS