IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 25788 OF 2024 Between: Bathula Siva Rama Krishna, S/o Adinarayana, Aged 39 Years, Occ; Data Entry Operator, Under orders of removal, R/o D.No. 6-112, Punuru Post, Yaddanapudi Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3. The Tahsildar, Martur, Bapatia District, AP 4. The Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourced Services, Rep. By its Managing Director, 2nd Floor NTR Administrative Block, PN Bus station, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings vide Rc.No. A2/1296/2023 dated 03-02-2024 wherein removed the petitioner from service without conducting any may enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article Constitution of India and consequently set aside the respondents to reinstate me into duty as Data Entry Operator set aside the same. 14 and 16 of the same by directing the lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the proceedings vide Rc.No. A2/1296/2023 dated 02-2024 of the 2nd respondent by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Data Entry Operator, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. 03- Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S B NIRUPAMA GAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No. 4; SRI K BHEEMA RAO The Court made the following order: r 1 CGR, J. W.P.No,25788of 2024 APHC010497912024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 25788/2024 Between; Bathula Siva Rama Krishna ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B. NIRUPAMAGAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2.KBHEEMA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2'^'^ respondent in issuing impugned proceedings vide Rc. No.A2/1296/2023, dated 03.02.2024, wherein removed the petitioner from service without conducting any enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into duty as Data Entry Operator and set aside the same and to pass ....” 2. Heard Ms.B.Nirupama Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for i 2 CGR, J, W.P.No.25788of2024 1 respondents 1 to 3; and Sri K. Bheema Rao, learned standing counsel, appearing for the 4**^ respondent. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator on contract basis on 16.11.2018 and posted to Electoral Registration Office, Parchur, Prakasam District. After creation of Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourcing Services, he was migrated to the said Corporation and working as such. He was issued show-cause notice. dated 13.11.2023 alleging that he absented/absconded from duties for more than one month without prior permission of the competent authority and therefore, was called upon to submit explanation. Petitioner, in turn, has submitted explanation on 21.11.2023 refuting the same. The 2^^ respondent - competent authority has passed impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A2/1296/2023, dated 03.02.2024, removing petitioner from services. Assailing the said order, present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of removal does not consider the objections/explanation offered by the petitioner and does not record any reasons rejecting the same, in a mechanical manner, and without any application of mind, order has 4. been passed, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 3 CGR, J. W.PNo25788 of 2024 4) Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant 5. Government Pleader for Services-I has referred to counter-affida vit filed by the 2^^ respondent, inter alia, stating that petitioner has indulged in leakage of electoral information to outsiders, as the Electoral Officer, 104, Parchur, Assembly Constituency has by letter, dated 17.09.2023, addressed the 2"'^ respondent to initiate appropriate action, basing on the said letter and report, petitioner was issued prior show-cause notice and after considering the explanation, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, there is no illegality and hence, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The 2"^^ respondent exercising powers in terms of Para.3(IV)(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.4271 Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 01.11.2008, having satisfied with the allegations, has removed petitioner from service, which is in accordance with law and therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions of either 6. side. Petitioner is admittedly at the relevant time working as Data Entry Operator under the control of the respondents 2 and 4. He was issued show-cause notice, dated 13.11.2023. As per the said show-cause notice, the only allegation levelled against the petitioner was that he absented/absconded from duties since months ago without prior 7. i CGR, J. W.P.No.25788of2024 1 permission of competent authority and for such gross negligence in performing the duties, was called upon to submit explanation. Petitioner has submitted detailed explanation on 20.11.2023. The impugned order passed by the 2^^ respondent, though refers to show- cause notice and reply of the petitioner, does not specifically deal with the objections raised. In para. 4 of the impugned order, the 2'^^ respondent except for stating that it is satisfied and felt necessary to remove petitioner from service, such satisfaction has not been spelt out by way of recording reasons. 2^^ respondent being quasi-judicial authority is required to set out reasons for arriving any satisfaction or coming to conclusion that petitioner deserve punitive action of removal from service. 8. In M/s.KrantI Asso. Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan\ 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 v. M/S.Shukla & Brothers^, 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 / / ' (2010) 9 see 496 2 (2010) 4 see 785 CGR, J. W.P.No.25788of 2024 its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. In State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad JaP, the Hon’ble Apex 10. Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I by referring to counter-affidavit tried to justify the impugned order contending that reason for issuance of show-cause notice was based on report submitted by the Electoral Officer and besides also contending that petitioner indulged in leakage of certain information. 12. The above submissions do not deserve consideration for simple reason that show-cause notice does not refer to the allegation of leakage of information nor the genesis of enquiry was based on the alleged report. It is trite law that when once show-cause notice is issued on a particular aspect or charge, the enquiry cannot extend beyond what has been called upon to explain and extend to other issues. Even otherwise, the respondents cannot improve their stand in the counter affidavit by expanding or supplementing with reasons, if the same are otherwise not made part of the original decision. M2008) 15 see 711 6 CGR, J. WPNo.25788of2024 In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned proceedings vide 13. Rc.No.A2/1296/2023, dated 03.02.2024, issued by the 2"^ respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2^^ respondent for reconsideration. The 2"^^ respondent shall consider the objections of the petitioner before passing final order and in case proposes to rely on any material including that of report stated to have been submitted by the Electoral Officer, copy of the same be furnished to the petitioner, who, in turn, is granted liberty to submit explanation within a reasonable time and thereafter, the 2^^ respondent is to decide the matter by passing appropriate speaking order. 14. In view of setting aside the impugned order, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, which shall be subject to further enquiry and orders to be passed. 15. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMWJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Collector And District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3. The Tahsildar, Martur, Bapatia District, AP 4. The Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourced Services, Rep. By its Managing Director, 2nd Floor NTR Administrative Block, PN Bus station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5. One CC to M/s B Nirupama Gayathri Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri K Bheema Rao Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies GSC •• *. •. -#■' a- .. t w % HIGH COURT DATED;23/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.25788 of 2024 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS