IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14731 OF 2021 Between: Shakunthala, W/o. Payani, Aged 46 years, Occ: Field Assistant of Baitakodiambedu Gram panchayath, R/o. Baitakodiambedu Gram panchyath, Nagulapuram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Amaravathi, AP 2. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 3. The Project Director DWMA, Chittoor District, Chittoor. ...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 or writs more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the services of petitioner (keeping out of contract employment) continuing the petitioner under suspension vide order in RC No. K8/1213/2020 dt. 28-01-2021 without reinstatement in to service and not paying the subsistence allowance as illegal, arbitrary high handed and can not be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondent to reinstatement the petitioner in to service as filed Asst of Baitakodiyarnbedu grampanchayath Nagaulapuram Mandal Chittoor District consequential benefits in the interest of justice. may with all lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service by suspending the operation of impugned orders vide RC No. K8/1213/2020 dt. 28-01-2021 of the 3'^'^ respondent in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M.S.R. CHANDRA MURTHY, SC FOR MGNREGS The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010254472021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14731/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER Shakunthala AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: K 1.CH SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV 2.M S R CHANDRA MURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief; “ to issue a writ or writs more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the services of petitioner keeping of contract employment continuing the petitioner under suspension vide order in RC No K8/1213/2020 dt 28.01.2021 without reinstatement in to service and not paying the subsistence allowance as illegal arbitra^ high handed and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondent to reinstatement the petitioner in to service as filed Asst of Baitakodiyarnbedu grampanchayath Nagaulapuram Mandal, Chittor District, with all consequential benefits m the interest of justice to pass " 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Rozgar Sevak for Baita kodiambedu No.HR/RC/rec-2011, dated.25.02.2012, her services have been converted his appointment, she has been discharging his caution and to the satisfaction of his Nagulapuram under the political person in her place submitted Basing on the said letter of the MPDO petitioner under out of contractual of the dereliction of the duties and proceedings Grampanchayath vide proceedings of the 3rG respondent, subsequently as filed Asst. It is stated that that ever since my duties with utmost care and superiors While so, the MPDO pressure for appointment of some other a false information to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent placed the employment temporarily and the allegations non achievement of minimum performance parameters, vide impugned orders RC. No. K8/1213/2020 dated 23.07.2020 making certain allegations against the petitioner, which Hence, the present writ petition. is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3: While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that petitioner submitted her explanation the on 28.07.2020 against the Suspension (kept out of contractual temporarily) notice dated 23.07.2020. This respondent directed Assistant Project Director, Nagari cluster to conduct enquiry and submit a report. Thereafter, the Assistant Project Director issued notice to the petitioner on 14.08.2020 directed to attend the enquiry on 21.08.2020 at 10.30 am at Baitakodiambedu Gram Panchayat office. Accordingly, the Assistant Project Director, Nagari cluster, on 21.08.2020, conducted detailed enquiry and obtained statements of who are attended in the enquiry and submitted report to this respondent on 21.08.2020. Basing on the said report, this respondent issued specific charges and called for the explanation of the petitioner and also directed to attend personal hearing on 14.09.2020. The petitioner attended personal hearing on 14.09.2020 and also submitted her explanation. This respondent after verifying the entire records found that the petitioner has committed irregularities. Therefore, this respondent issued kept out of contract employment permanently and terminated Proc.Rc.No.K8/1213/2020, dated 28.01.2021. 4. Heard Sri Ch. Srinvias, learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri M.S.R Chandra Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation, but the 3'^'^ respondent without giving any opportunity, passed the impugned order terminating the petitioner, is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to issue a direction to the 3'^'^ respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. i Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to 6. I dismiss the same. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 3^'^ respondent while denying the contents made by the petitioner, reiterated the averments made in the counter. He further submits that actually this 3"'^ respondent has given notice calling for explanation and after verifying the records and after detailed enquiry only, he has issued the proceedings. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others ^ regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus; 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 of the exceptions carved out by the Apex The instant case falls in one Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here and circumstances of the case and on 9. Having regard to the facts ina the material available on record, without touching the merits of the perusing case impugned order in this writ petition respondent authorities concerned for proper appreciation. of the writ petition by setting aside the this Court is inclined to dispose and also inclined to remand back the matter to the Proc.Rc.No.K8/ the impugned proceedings in 10. Accordingly respondent are hereby set dated 28.01.2021 issued by the 3 is remanded back to the 3'“ respondent with a 1213/2020, Further, the matter is aside. direction to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned order in of three (03) months from the date of accordance with law, within a period receipt of a copy of this order. the Writ Petition is disposed of. No miscellaneous applications shall stand With the above observation 11. costs. As a sequel, all the pending closed. Sd/- SRINIVAS assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECT ON OFFICER To, 1. The its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi, AP Department, State of Andhra 2. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. Director DWMA, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 3. The Project 4. One CC to Sri Ch. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, SC for MGNREGS[OPUCl 6. Two CCS to GP for Services-IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb 4^ \ HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.14731 of 2021 12 FEB 2025 | Current Section 7X vtC> disposing of the w.p. without costs