APHC010334092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16856/2025 Between: 1. TAMARAPU SWATI,, D/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.3-112, ULLIBADRA VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT DEPARATMENT, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COORDINATOR, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANATEE SCHEME, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DWMA, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT ...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 Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of 3rd respondent issuing the termination proceedings, dated 22-01-2025 vide Rc.No.680/2024/HRMS/Manyam without conducting proper enquiry and without giving an opportunity of personal hearing as specifically laid down under Rule 13 of Field Assistant Human Resource Policy is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to SET- ASIDE the termination proceedings, dated 22-01-2025 vide Rc.No.680/2024/HRMS/Manyam in the interest of justice IA 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 DIRECT the official respondents to revoke the termination order and rejoin the petitioner into the services in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner assails termination orders dated 22.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent removing the petitioner from service as Field Assistant to be arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the procedure contemplated under Rule 13 of Field Assistant Human Resource Policy. 2. Heard Sri K.S.S.Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services I and Sri MSR Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Petitioner had been issued show cause notice dated 24.09.2024 on certain irregularities to which an explanation dated 27.09.2024 has been submitted refuting the same. However, instead of the completing enquiry within 30 days as contemplated under Rule 13 of the Field Assistant Human Resource Policy (hereinafter referred to as Policy), petitioner was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 23.10.2024 and ultimately by impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2025, she came to be removed from service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceedings are vitiated on account of non adherence to the procedure and timelines contemplated under the Policy and further even the impugned order does not record to any specific findings for coming to the extreme conclusion of very removal of petitioner from service. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, on the other hand, though initially tried to justify the impugned order, however, as the orders doesn’t record any reasons besides not following the procedure, sought to remand the matter back for de nova consideration. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. As contemplated under the Policy, the enquiry has to be completed within 30 days and further final orders to be passed providing due reasons why the disciplinary authority has come to conclusion of imposing the punishment. The impugned order goes to show that neither the timelines were followed nor procedure contemplated has been adhered to and any reasons recorded. 8. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 9. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers2 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. 1 (2010) 9 SCC 496 2 (2010) 4 SCC 785 10. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai3 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings impugned vide Rc.No.680/2024/HRMS/Manyam, dated 22.01.2025 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent. The learned 3rd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing. The petitioner shall appear personally and submit an explanation if any. Upon considering the explanation and hearing of the petitioner, the learned 3rd respondent shall pass orders by assigning reasons by following the timelines fixed in Field Assistant Human Resource Policy, 2013. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 09th July, 2025 RKS 3 (2008) 15 SCC 711