APHC010207692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO.10493 OF 2025 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1763 of 2025 Bench Sr.Nos:- 66 & 67 [3506] Pyla Ramana ...Petitioner Vs. R.Purnima Devi ...Contemnor ********** Advocate for Petitioner: POOLLA SRAVANTH Advocate for Contemnor: M S R CHANDRA MURTHY CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 3rd July 2026 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner in Writ Petition No.10493 of 2025 is aggrieved by proceedings No.R.C.No.99/2024/ Human Resource Department, dated 30.11.2024, issued by 3rd respondent, by which the services of petitioner came to be terminated without any prior enquiry and show cause notice to be arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant on 01.01.2018 and that he has been allowed to discharge duties, extending the initial engagement from time to time. He was working as Field Assistant in pursuance to the scheme envisaged under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (for short, 2 CGR, J W.P. No.10493 of 2025 & C.C. No.1964 of 2025 ‘MGNREGS Act’) at Srungavaram Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District. 3. The 3rd respondent, by impugned proceedings dated 30.11.2024, terminated the services of petitioner as Field Assistant on account of the conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner in S.C.No.69 of 2019, on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, for the offences under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Assailing the same, Writ Petition No.10493 of 2025 is preferred. 4. Heard Sri Sk.Rafi, learned counsel, representing Sri Poolla Sravanth, learned counsel for petitioner on record and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for MGNREGS. 5. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contends that the impugned order came to be passed without any enquiry or prior show-cause notice and straightaway petitioner has been terminated from service on the ground that he was convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. (b) He further contended that the said judgment of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has been carried in appeal 3 CGR, J W.P. No.10493 of 2025 & C.C. No.1964 of 2025 before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2014 and by order dated 13.08.2024, petitioner has been granted bail and that the matter is pending adjudication. It is his contention that the procedure adopted by 3rd respondent in terminating services of petitioner is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice, as even according to the Field Assistants Human Resource Policy in terms of clause 13-B, petitioner is entitled for notice before any action is initiated. 6. Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel, appearing for respondent, however, by referring to the counter filed contends that the petitioner has been continued as Filed Assistant and his last engagement was to remain in force still 31.04.2025, therefore, even otherwise now he cannot be taken back into service and further that the very scheme envisaged under MGNREGS Act has been now repealed and a new scheme has been floated. Further, it has not been denied that the impugned order of termination came to be passed without conducting any enquiry by issuing appropriate show-cause notice and affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 7. Perused the record and considered respective submissions made by learned counsel. 4 CGR, J W.P. No.10493 of 2025 & C.C. No.1964 of 2025 8. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was discharging duties as Field Assistant at relevant point of time. Even though petitioner came to be convicted by the competent Criminal Court, that by itself cannot be a ground for the 3rd respondent to pass order of termination straightaway without following the proceedings as envisaged under Clause 13-B of Field Assistants Human Resource Policy. Ex facie, the impugned order, therefore, is vitiated for violating principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. As rightly contended by learned counsel for petitioner, the termination causes stigma on petitioner and the same would debar and disqualify him from future employment. Keeping in view the submissions made by petitioner, the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside. As the tenure of engagement has ended by 31.03.2025, petitioner as a matter of right cannot insist that the respondents take him back into service, however, it is left open to the respondents, in case the services of petitioner are required, to consider his request to engage him in appropriate post. It is needless to say that the 3rd respondent is at liberty to initiate further proceedings, if so advised. 5 CGR, J W.P. No.10493 of 2025 & C.C. No.1964 of 2025 10. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.10493 of 2025 is allowed. In view of the orders passed in the above writ petition, Contempt Case No.1763 of 2025 stands closed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss