APHC010284232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 14380/2025 Between: Chegireddy Sirisha ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the orders vide Rc.No. D2/527/ EGS/2024, dated 15.04.2025, issued by the 4th Respondent terminating the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant of Bogolu Gramapanchayat without affording any opportunity, without following any procedure, without conducting any Grama Sabha, as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Field Assistant of Bogolu Gramapanchayat, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District and pass …” 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.14380 of 2025 2. Heard Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondents 1 and 2; Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 6; and Smt.B.V. Aparna Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel, for respondent No.5. 3. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, dated 15.04.2025, issued by the 4th respondent does not consider or refer to the explanation offered by the petitioner, therefore, is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 6, on the other hand, would submit that though petitioner was issued show-cause notice on two occasions, she failed to submit any explanation, therefore, 4th respondent has passed the impugned order and as against the said order, petitioner has alternative remedy of filing appeal before the 3rd respondent, which she did not choose to and therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. On perusal of the record, it discloses that in pursuance to show- cause notice, dated 17.03.2025, petitioner has submitted explanation on 27.03.2025, however, the impugned order does not refer to the 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.14380 of 2025 explanation and proceeds on the assumption that no explanation has been offered which is clear factual error. Therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition should succeed. When the order is vitiated on account of principles of natural justice, availing of alternative remedy of appeal is no avail. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order, dated 15.04.2025, issued by the 4th respondent and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration and 4th respondent is directed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner and pass appropriate speaking order, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:18.06.2025. cs