APHC010593792022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 35900/2022 Between: Yedida Adinarayana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASULU.P Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KANDA SRINIVASU SC for Endowments for Konaseema and West Godavari Districts 2. T BALAJI 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing impugned memo vide Rc.No.A2/11024(43)/19/2021-2, dated 30.08.2022, directing the 5th 2 respondent to discontinue the petitioner’s service as Record Assistant with immediate effect and also directed the respondents 5 and 6 to take necessary legal action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount paid to him towards salaries and consequential proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/266/2017, dated 30.08.2022 issued by the 5th respondent, without issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation is highly illegal, consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Record Assistant with all consequential benefits and pass such orders ..…” 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner joined as Record Assistant in 6th respondent group temple on 01.06.1993, later he was transferred to Kotilingala and Gowthami Jeeva Karunya Sangam at Rajahmundry, thereafter he was transferred to Katheru group temple in the year 2016. When his parent institution i.e., 6th respondent herein is not in a position to give salaries to employees, the 4th respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/916/2012-1, dated 26.09.2017 to work as Record Assistant in the 5th respondent institution on deputation basis for a period of one year, later the said deputation period was extended from time to time. It is further stated that without completion of his deputation period, which is up to 28.09.2021, on baseless allegations, he was kept under suspension vide memo in Rc.No.V2/20024/25/2020, dated 29.01.2021 by the 2nd respondent on the allegation that he got information under Right to Information Act and blackmailing the higher authorities. Subsequently, on the same allegations, the 5th respondent issued a charge memo to him vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/266-1/2017, dated 10.02.2021. The petitioner submitted explanation for the charge memo denying the said charges and further requested to drop 3 further action against him, but the respondent authorities are not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner and appointed the enquiry officer and directed to conduct enquiry. But the enquiry was not yet commenced. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17848 of 2021 before this Hon’ble Court and this Court granted interim direction directing the respondents to give subsistence allowance of 75% per annum with immediate effect. The said W.P. is pending for adjudication. He filed another W.P.No.3398 of 2022 before this Court seeking a direction for further extension of his deputation in 5th respondent institution; the same is pending before this Court for adjudication. Surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued impugned memo in Rc.No.A2/11024(43)/19/2021-2, dated 30.08.2022 directing the 5th respondent to discontinue the petitioner’s service as Record Assistant with immediate effect and also directed the respondents 5 and 6 to take necessary legal action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount paid to him towards salaries. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner has to prefer revision before the government under Section 93 of the Act against the orders of 2nd respondent. Without exhausting the remedy available under the provisions of the statute, the petitioner straight away filed this writ petition by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is further stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as NMR in the establishment of Sri Markandeya Swamy Temple, Katheru village, 4 Rajamahendravaram on daily wage of Rs.15/- for a period of 6 months from 01.07.1993, subsequently, as per orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajamahendravaram in D.Dis No.A4/17322/1993, dated 01.07.1994 permission was accorded to extend time scale of pay to the petitioner in the cadre of Record Assistant with effect from 01.07.1994. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was suspended from 12.01.1997 upto 01.04.1999 on certain allegations and he was reverted back as attender and reinstated into services on 01.04.1999, treating the suspension period of the petitioner as non-service. It is submitted that the parent institution of the petitioner is not in a position to pay the salaries, the petitioner was deputed to work in various temples, later the petitioner repatriated to his parents institution, accordingly, the petitioner was relieved on 11.09.2015 and he was directed to join at his parent institution. The petitioner refused to receive the said orders and absconded from duties without even obtaining leave from the competent, thereupon the 4th respondent has directed the Executive authority of the parent institution of the petitioner to take suitable disciplinary action as the petitioner did not obey the orders of higher authority. It is further stated that while the matter stood thus, a complaint was filed before he Hon’ble Lokayukha of A.P. and inturn Lokayukta called for the 2nd respondent to submit detailed report. The 2nd respondent inturn directed the 3rd respondent to enquire and submit report. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has enquired and submitted report vide Rc.No.A1/381537/2021, dated 07.04.2022 to the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner herein is 5 continuing in service as Record Assistant fraudulently by playing mischief on the department though he was removed from service on 17.01.2017 itself and the same was not challenged. Since the order of removal of petitioner from service by the Executive Officer of Sri Markendeya Swamy Temple, Katheru, dated 17.01.2017 has attained finality, the petitioner has no right to continue in service after 17.01.2017. But he has been illegally continuing his service as Record Assistant in PMK Choultry, Rajamahendravaram on deputation basis by playing fraud on the department. On considering the above facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent has issued memo in Rc.No.A2/11024(43)/19/2021-2, dated 30.08.2022 directing the Executive Officer of PMK Choultry, Rajamahendravaram to discontinue the services of the petitioner with immediate effect since he was removed from service long back i.e., 17.01.2017 by the competent authority after following the procedure and the said orders attained finality. It was further directed to the Executive Officer of PMK Choultry as well Sri Markandeya Swamy Temple, Katheru to take necessary legal action against the petitioner herein for recovery of amount paid to him towards salaries since the date of his removal from service to till the date of discontinue him from services. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has no right whatsoever to continue his service as Record Assistant on or after 17.01.2017 on which date the petitioner was removed from services by the competent authority, for his unauthorized absence from duties for more than one year period, by relying on G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 04.09.2003. As such, the petitioner cannot and shall 6 not invoke with jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Constitution of India seeking to protect his illegal continuation of service though he is aware that he was removed from service long long back i.e., on 17.01.2017. In view of above facts of the case, the petitioner does not deserve prior notice from 2nd respondent for issuance of orders dated 30.08.2022 under question in this writ petition. No prima facie case is made out by the petitioner to get any relief as sought for in this writ petition and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 4. The counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 denying the allegations made in the writ petition and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard Sri P.Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that without issuing any prior notice, straight away the 2nd respondent issued impugned memo in Rc.No.A2/11024(43)/19/2021-2, dated 30.08.2022 directing the 5th respondent to discontinue the petitioner’s service as Record Assistant with immediate effect and also directed the respondents 5 and 6 to take necessary legal action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount paid to him towards salaries and prayed the Court to allow the petition. 7 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that after conducting enquiry, the writ petitioner was removed from service by the Executive Officer of Group temples, Katheru vide order dated 17.01.2017, as Sri Markandeya Swamy Temple, Katheru is one of the group temples, Kathru. The removal orders were communicated to the petitioner through registered post, which was returned as ‘refused’. Later, the said Executive officer was transferred to another institution. One A.Satyanarayana Murhty, Executive officer took charge as Executive Officer of Group temples, Katheru. The writ petitioner has colluded with the said Executive officer and got relieved from the parent institution and allowed the writ petitioner to join in P.M.K.Choultry, Rajamahendravaram even though knowing fully well that the writ petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 17.01.2017. The fact of removal of writ petitioner from service after enquiry was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Endowments either prior to issue order of deputation of the writ petitioner from his parent institution to other institution or subsequently. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the material on record. 9. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others 1 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 1 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 8 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 10. On perusing the affidavit of the petitioner and the counters of the respondents, it appears that the authorities without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, straight away passed the impugned order and discontinued the services of the petitioner is violation of principles of natural justice and under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the material available on record, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in this writ petition and also inclined to remand back the matter to the respondent authorities concerned for proper appreciation, while declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.A2/11024(43)/19/2021-2, dated 30.08.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and also proceedings vide 9 Rc.No.A1/266/2017, dated 30.08.2022 issued by the 5th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 12. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A2/11024(43)/19/2021-2, dated 30.08.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the concerned respondent authorities to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate fresh reasoned orders, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the enquiry officer. 13. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 10.04.2025 sj 10 120 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.35900 of 2022 Date : 10.04.2025 sj