APHC010423232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22115/2025 Between: Jali Satyavathi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.22115 of 2025 O R D E R: In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the Order dated 02.08.2024 terminating the services of the Petitioner on the ground of negligence and dereliction of duties as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife ( for short ‘ A.N.M’). 2. The Petitioner was appointed as A.N.M. at KGBV Kothapatnam, Prakasam on 14.06.2023. While so, a minor girl had delivered the child in the school bathroom and died. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.256 of 2024 was registered against the Petitioner by the Chimakurthy P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3) and 376 (2) of IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and under Section 3 (1) (w) (i) and 3 (2) (v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Consequent thereto, the services of the Petitioner were terminated on 02.08.2024 vide impugned Proceedings in R.C.No.820/A2/SS/2024, dated 02.08.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that no prior notice nor any inquiry was conducted, nor was the 3 defense of the Petitioner heard by the Respondent Authorities before issuing the impugned Order. He further submits that as regards the Petitioner, this Court had set aside a similar order on 21.12.2024 in W.P.No.18119 of 2024, and therefore, he seeks for extension of similar benefit to the Petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Petitioner is an outsourcing employee, whereas the Petitioner in W.P.No.18119 of 2024 is a Contract Principal and as there is a difference in the employment, no inquiry need be conducted as against an outsourcing employee. 5. Having heard the respective counsel, it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of negligence and dereliction of duties without conducting any inquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the State of A.P, rep. by its Principal Secretary v. K. Madhu Phani and 4 another1 held that even the outsourcing employees are entitled to an inquiry to be conducted when their services are being terminated on stigmatic grounds. The relevant paragraph No.4 thereof is extracted hereunder: “ In our opinion, even in case of an outsourced employee, he cannot be stigmatized without an enquiry and in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in making the interim order absolute”. 7. In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench and the fact that similar punishment on the Principal of the college was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.18119 of 2024, the present Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned Order dated 02.08.2024 vide R.C. No. 820/A2/SS/2024. The Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the explanation of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law before taking any further action. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 (2018) 1 ALT 125 (DB) 5 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 22.08.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 22115/2025 Dt. 22.08.2025 eha