IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY | TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE * PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12867 OF 2025 A Between: K Syama Sundar Rao, S/o. Late Venkateswarlu, Aged 69 years Correspondent, Siva Sai Aided Upper Primary School, Markapur’ Prakasam District. ’ ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, pe Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, D. No. 398/3, Vidya Bhavan, Venkatadri Towers, Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal Guntur District. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur Guntur District. The District Educational Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ, order direction more particularly one the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4*" respondent in issuing show cause notice vide Lr.Rc.No.1106/C2/2024 dated 04-04-2025 and called for an explanation as to why the Correspondentship of the petitioner shall not be cancelled within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this order without furnishing the copy of compliant as well as the copy of enquiry report is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. may 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to vide Lr.Rc.No.1106/C2/2024 dated 04-04-2025 of the 4 disposal of this writ petition. ft ■ th respondent, pending Counsel for the Petitioner; SMT KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010254452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 12867/2025 Between: 1.K SYAMA SUNDAR RAO, S/0. LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED 69 YEARS, CORRESPONDENT, SIVA SAI AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.R SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRE PRADESH, D. NO. 398/3, VIDYA BHAVAN, VENKATADRI TOWERS, ATMAKUR VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, . PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KAVITHAGOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. B. Nirupama, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned Government Pleader for School Education. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2025 (Ex.P.1). The said Show Cause Notice would indicate that one Sri M. Sai Ram, working SGT, went on leave and in the course of sanctioning of the said leave as well as the drawing of salary, certain irregularities have been committed. It also transpires from the Show Cause Notice that on various directions, the District Educational Officer as well as the Director of School Education were directed to conduct detailed enquiry, which indicates that preliminary enquiries were conducted by both the Authorities. as It is the case of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Writ Petitioner was never called for any explanation at any stage of the enquiry was the Reports, relied by the District Educational Officer, in issuing the impugned Order, were supplied to the Writ Petitioner. In other words, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the entire enquiry as well as the preparation of the Reports took place behind the back of the Writ Petitioner and even when the impugned Show Cause Notice was issued, the Petitioner was not supplied with any material. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that without supplying the material, the Writ Petitioner would not be able to meaningfully answer the allegations mentioned in the Show Cause Notice. 3. nor It is the submission of Sri Ramachandra Rao Gurram, learned Government Pleader for School Education that there is no requirement to issue Notice when discrete enquiry is being conducted. He would submit that the Report is the result of the discrete enquiry, basing on which, the Show Cause Notice is issued to the Writ Petitioner. 4. 5. Even assuming that the Official Respondents are entitled to conduct discrete enquiry, if the Report of the discrete enquiry would disclose the involvement of the Petitioner, it is incumbent on the part of the Official Respondents to have supplied not only the copies of such Reports but also every piece of incriminating material which had been relied on by the Official Respondents in the preparation of the enquiry Report as well as for arriving at prima facie conclusion that the Writ Petitioner has committed some irregularity. Since none of these aspects have been complied with, the Show Cause Notice issued by the District Educational Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole, bearing Lr.Rc.No.1106/C2/2024, dated 04.04.2025 (Ex.P.1) is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 04.04.2025 , (Ex.P.1) IS set aside. However, the Official Respondents are at liberty to issue / fresh Proceeding by following the due process of law, more particularly by adhering to the prirrciples of Natural Justice by supplying ail such material and ehquiry Reports, which are relied by the Official Respondents. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merit as regards the irregularity or delinquency on the part of the Writ Petitioner as the same is to be decided by the Official Respondents. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/- M. SURYANADHA REDDY / DEPUTY REGISTRAR 8. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, D. No. 398/3, Vidya Bhavan, Venkatadri Towers, Atmakur Village, Manqalaqiri Mandal Guntur District. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur, Guntur District. The District Educational Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole. One CC to Smt Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC] T^^CCs to GP for School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 2 0 MW 2125 A8«W>TCW*Si ORDER WP.No.12867 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS