I APHC010325192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16376 OF 2025 Between: U Suresh Kumar, S/o U.Narasappa, age about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No.8-11-1, RWS 17, Reddygari Veedi, Atmakur Town, Kurnool Nandyal District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), at RTC House, 1st Floor, NTR Administration Block, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada -520013, NTR District. 3. The District Public Transport Officer, (APSRTC/APPTD), Kurnool. 4. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager. (APSRTC/APPTD). Kurnool. 5. The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Adoni, Kurnool District. 6. The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Yemmiganur Kurnool District ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one I in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 5 and 6 in issuing the officer orders vide No.P1/122/ (01)/2025-ADN, dated 17-04-2025, for recover of Rs.2,35,245/- in ten instalments and No.O1/122(03)/2023-YMG dated 14-10-2024, for recover of Rs. 1,63,515/- in seven instalments respectively, from the montly remuneration payable to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 23-03-2023, and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the officer orders vide No.P1/122/(01)/ 2025-ADN, dated 17-04-2025 No.O1/122(03)/2023-YMG dated 14-10-2024. and 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 suspend the officer orders of the respondents 5 No.P1/122/(01)/2025-ADN, dated 17-04-2025, and No.01/ 122(03)/2023-YMG dated 14-10-2024 respectively, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6: SRI A RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC) to & 6, vide The Court made the following order: APHC010325192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16376/2025 Between: 1.U SURESH KUMAR, S/0 U.NARASAPPA, AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS, R/0 D.NO.8-11-1, RWS 17, REDDYGARI VEEDI, ATMAKUR TOWN, KURNOOL NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. SECRETARIAT 2.THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (APSRTC), AT RTC HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATION BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA DISTRICT. 3.THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, (APSRTC/APPTD) KURNOOL. 4.THE DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, (APSRTC/APPTD), KURNOOL. 5.THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC., ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6.THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC., YEMMIGANUR KURNOOL DISTRICT 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action, of the respondents 5 and 6 in issuing the officer orders vide No.P1/122/ (01)/2025-ADN, dated 17- 04-2025, for recover of Rs.2,35,245/- in No.O1/122(03)/2023-YMG dated 14-10-2024, for recover of Rs. 1,63,515/- in seven installments respectively, from the monthly remuneration payable to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 23-03- 2023, and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the officer orders vide No.PI/122/(01)/ 2025-ADN, dated 17-04- 2025, and No.O1/122(03)/2023-YMG dated 14-10-2024, and to pass ten installments and 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 may be pleased to suspend the officer orders of the respondents5 & 6, vide No.P1/122/(01 )/2025-ADN, dated 17-04-2025, and No.01/ 122(03)72023- YMG dated 14-10-2024 respectively,, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.KVISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri K.Viswanatham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rama Rao, learned Standing counsel for respondents 2 to 6. s . 3 rev* Impugning the office order issued by the 6^^ respondent vide No.01/122(03)/2023-YMG dated 14.10.2024, directing the petitioner to pay alleged excess paid commission of Rs.1,63,515/- and another office order No.P1/122(01)/2025-AND, dated 17.04.2025, directing the petitioner to pay alleged excess paid commission of Rs.2,35,245/- by the 5*'^ respondent, the above writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, without issuing any prior notice or inquiry, the authorities determined the amount and issued proceedings. 3. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents would submit that in respect of the office order dated 14.10.2025, issued by the 6*^ respondent to the petitioner, a prior notice was issued to the petitioner: however, the petitioner failed to submit the explanation. He would also fairly submit that in respect of the office order dated 17.04.2025, no prior notice was issued to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition was listed on 03.07.2025 and adjourned at the request of learned Standing counsel to produce the notice dated 24.09.2024, said to have been issued to the petitioner by the 6*^ respondent. 5. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Standing counsel would submit that a copy of the notice dated 24.09.2024 is not available. The failure on the part of the respondents to produce a copy of the notice, said to have been served on the petitioner, would itself manifest that no notice was served on the petitioner. Had the notice been served on the petitioner, a copy of the notice would be available in the office records of the respondents. ~ ^.7 Thus, both the 5 and 6 respondents issued orders impugned in the writ petition, without providing an opportunity to the petitioner. No inquiry was 4 conducted by issuing a prior notice, and the authorities determined that the petitioner had paid an excess amount. The process adopted by the authorities, prima facie, violates the principles of natural justice and is hence vitiated. On this ground alone, the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside. The Hon’ble Apex Court in UMC Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Food Corpn. of India,^ regarding the violation of principles of natural justice observed as follows; 8. 13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Custodian General, Evacuee Property [Nasir Ahmad V. Custodian General, Evacuee Property, (1980) 3 see 1] has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2021)2 see 551 m 5 Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The office orders dated 17.04.2025 and 14.10.2024 {Ex.P2) are hereby set aside. However, this order will not preclude respondents 5 and 6 from initiating fresh proceedings by following due process. No costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, at RTC House, 1st Floor, NTR Administration Block, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada 3. The District Public Transport Officer, (APSRTC/APPTD), Kurnool. 4. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, (APSRTC/APPTD), Kurnool. 5. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Adoni, Kurnool District. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District 7. One CC to Sri K Viswanatham, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri A Rama Rao (SC for APSRTC), Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Transport, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies 6. 8. 9. TF HIGH COURT DATED:10/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16376 OF 2025 of X 2 5 JUl 2075 m coA/ Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS