¥ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE SUBBA WRIT PETITION NO: 314QR of on?/| PRADESH AMARAVATI Si 4’ >/ c ^ y REDDY SATTI Between: K M Yugandhar, S/o. Munivenkata Nadimpalli Village. Shantipuram residing at Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh Achari, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Mandal, Chittoor District Presently ...Petitioner AND 1. The Slate of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary School Education, A.P. Secretariat, Veiagapudi, Andhra pLdes" "' 2. The Commissioner of School Education, 3. The District Educational Officer Mangalgiri, Andhra Pradesh. Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. A.P. Model School Andhra Pradesh p Kuppam Mandal Chittoor ndhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal. District, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the the circumstances stated be pleased to i Constitution of India in the affidavit filed therewith. praying that in the High Court may issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3 rd Respondent in terminating the Petitioner from 26.10.2024 without service vide Rc. No. 3360/D3/2024 dated considering the Petitioners explanation as illegal, 14, 16. and 21 of the Constitution arbitrary, and violative of Articles of India set aside the same and consequently direct the Direct 3rd Respondent to reinstate me in my position as Junior Assistant in the 4th Respondent, with continuity of service. 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 Rc. No. 3360/D3/2024 dated 26.10.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. AISHWARYA NAGULA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III and GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following order: APHC010600522024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31498/2024 Between: K M Yuandhar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AISHWARYA NAGU LA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR SERVICES III 2.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Mrs.Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education for respondents. \ i- Impugning the proceedings issued by the 3^^ respondent vide Rc.No.3360/D3/2024 dated 26.10.2024 terminating the petitioner’s services, the above writ petition is filed. i 2. a \ The petitioner has been working on a contract basis in the 4th respondent institution since 2015. One Smt. P. Sandhya, W/o Gangaiah, has complained against the petitioner. Acting upon the complaint, the petitioner was terminated from service by the proceedings impugned. 3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that terminating the petitioner's services without issuing any show cause notice conducting any enquiry by casting remarks, would hamper his prospects and hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. or i 5. Sri Ravi Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, on instructions, would submit that before terminating the services of petitioner, neither notice was issued nor enquiry was conducted 6. It is settled law that terminating any employee by casting stigma without conducting is impermissible. Such a removal would hamper the prospects of the employee. Thus, if an order is founded on allegations, the order is stigmatic and punitive, the services of an employee cannot be dispensed without affording him an opportunity of defending the accusations/allegations. 7. This Court in W.P.No.6396 of 2024 dated 01.08.2024, considered the said aspect set aside the order impugned, and directed the respondents therein to issue notice and conduct enquiry. Learned "Assistant Government Pleader for School Education would submit that the present facts of the case are squarely covered by the said order. > 8. Given the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the counsel, setting aside the proceedings issued by the 3'"^ respondent Rc.No.3360/D3/2024 dated 26.10.2024. The learned respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner within four weeks from today by annexing all relevant documents. Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit his explanation within four weeks. The 3^^^ respondent shall conduct an enquiry and if necessary, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass appropriate orders strictly as per Rules. No costs. The registry is directed to annex the copy of the order in W.P.No.6396 of 2024 to this order. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N.NAGAMA/IA assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SEC ICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary School Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Commissioner of School Education, Mangalgiri, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Educational Officer, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Principal, A.P. Model School, Nandimur Village, Kuppam Mandal Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri. Aishwarya Nagula Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services III, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order In WP 6396 of 2024) GSC HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.31498 of 2024 = 2 7 .IAN r-:i •w <2- ^ ^ . Curreni Secuon £-esPATCV^^ DISPOSING OF THE WP AT THE STAGE ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS OF APHC010123642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY .THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6396/2024 Between: S B T S Devi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) 2.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Nageswar Rao, learned counsel representing Smt.R.Sudha Rani, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2, 4, 6 to 8. 1 .WJiS SHs Wp_6396_2oi^x \ 2. The writ petition is fiied impugning the proceedings vide ESE13- KGBV/5/2024-SAi-SS-ANKP dated 06.03,2024 issued by the 6'" respondent whereby terminating the petitioner’s service with immediate effect and canceling the contract between the petitioner and the 7“^ \ respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that been working as a Contract Residential 23.04.2011 at Kasturba Gandhi Balika the petitioner has Teacher (CRT) (Telugu) since Vidyalaya, Devarapalli, Anakapalli District. The petitioner participated in selections and was appointed as CRT in the year 2011. The agreement entered between the petitioner and the 7*'" respondent, has been renewed year to year. Be that as it may, the petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground that the petitioner sent What’s App messages to other group members i.e., staff working in Kasturba Gandhi Baiika Vidyaiaya and demanded bribes of Rs.2,80,000/- for reguiarization of the saiaries under the Minimum Time Scaie. No inquiry was conducted before terminating the petitioner from service and canceiing the contract. He would submit that the respondent authority vioiated the principies of naturai justice and issued the proceedings and thus, the Proceedings impugned dated 06.03.2024 are liable to be set aside. 4. Sri Nageswar Rao, learned counsel on the other hand would contend that the petitioner by sending What’s App messages demanded the amount 4! V ^ SRS, J Wp_6396_2024 i from staff working in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya for regularization of their salaries under minimum time scale. He would submit that a case in Crime No. 105 of 2024 on the file of the Anakapalli Town police Station was registered against the petitioner. He would submit that the respondent authorities terminated her services in terms of a Clause contained in the contract. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. The point for consideration is whether the Proceedings dated 06.03.2024 issued by the 6'^ respondent terminating the petitioner from service as CRT and canceling the contract are sustainable.? 5. 6. As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute about the selection and appointment of the petitioner as a Teacher in 2011. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has been working on a contract and the contract has been renewed year to year. In the proceedings impugned it was stated as follows: “3. That on scrutiny of the services of the individual, it is observed that the individual has provoked staff working in KGBVs through Whatsapp group and demanded bribe upto Rs.2.80 Lakhs from the staff working in each KGBV, for regularization of their salaries under Minimum Time Scale and to handover the collected money to the Officials concerned who helped in the item of work.” 1 Wp_6396_2024 \ The proceedings would further indicate at 10.10 pm on 04.03.2024. \ that such a message was sent \ 7. Thus, the petitioner’s services were terminated misconduct and cheating of co-teachers. on the grounds of 8. It the allegation as pointed out in the iimpugned proceedings IS accepted, it would cause stigma prosperity of the petitioner. Even in the case of whenever service is terminated by stigmatizing the shali foilow the principies of natural justice. on the petitioner. It would hamper the future a contract employee, employee, the authority 9. In Director General of Police & the Apex Court observed as under; Ors. Vs. Mrityunjoy Sarkar & Ors^ “In the discharge order, it the power under Rule 34(b) of the (Part I) and the instructions was stated that the respondents had exercised West Bengal Service Regulations contained in Memo No.4145(2) dated November 22, 1985 of the Assistant Inspector General of Police Wes, Bengal. It ,s not ,n dispute that the Commissioner of Labour in his letter dated September 5/7, ,985 had informed the appellants that the list the names forwarded by the Employment their names were fabricated of Exchange was fake one and they do not correspond to the entries in the Employment Exchange. Consequently, he directed the appellants to take action according to rules. It would for discharge is production of fake list of thus be clear that the foundation persons from employment ' (1996) 8 see 280 4*' SRS.S Wp_6396_2024 exchange for recruitment as Armed Reserved Constables. If that is accepted, then it would cause a stigma on the respondents for future recruitment as they have produced fictitious record to secure employment. Principles of natural justice require that they should be given reasonable opportunity of representation in the enquiry to be conducted and appropriate orders with reasons in support thereof need to be passed. It is settled legal position and the said procedure has not been followed. Under these circumstances, the High Court had not committed any error in dismissing the appeal. It would be open to the appellants to issue notice to all the respondents and consider their case and then pass appropriate orders with reasons, however brief they may be, in support thereof within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. The said notice shall be given to the respondents stating the grounds on which they seek to discharge them and the respondents are directed to submit their objections, if any, and the material in support thereof within one month thereafter. After receipt of the objections, the appellants are directed to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders within six weeks thereafter and to communicate the same to all the respondents with acknowledgment due. The order, as stated earlier, should contain concise reasons in support of their conclusions.” 10. The same principle was reiterated In K.C.Joshi vs. Union of India & Ors.2, In Mangal Singh vs. chairman, National Research Development Corporation & Ors.^ where the petitioner was appointed on contract and his 11. ^ (1985) 3 see 153 " 2009 see Online Del 2345 services were terminated by what he alleged was a punitive and stigmatic order, without a departmental enquiry. It was observed as follows: “19. No doubt, it has been urged by the Respondent-Corporation that the order of termination was owing to the coming to an end of the Petitioner’s fixed period of service under the contract, but it seems to me that when the Petitioner was terminated, the impugned order dated 4”^ June, 2004 clearly finds him guilty of misconduct, thereby casting a stigma on the petitioner, and in that sense must be held to be an order of dismissal and not a mere order of discharge. It further seems that anyone who reads the order in a reasonable way, would naturally conclude that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct, and that must necessarily import an element of punishment which is the basis of the order and is its integral part. 20. It is trite to say, that when an authority wants to terminate the services of a temporary employee, it can pass a simple order of discharge without casting any aspersion against the temporary servant or attaching any stigma to his character. As soon as it is shown that the order purports to cast an aspersion on the temporary servant, it becomes idle to suggest that the order is a simple order of discharge. The test in such cases must be: does the order cast aspersion or attach stigma to the officer when it purports to discharge him? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then notwithstanding the form of the order, the termination of service must be held, in substance, to amount to dismissal. XXX XXX XXX 23. In India Literacy Board (supra) the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against an interim order passed by the Allahabad High Court and issued an order to the Single Judge before whom the writ petition was posted to take up the matter on a priority basis and dispose of the SRS, J Wp_6396_2024 same in accordance with law. It was not a matter that related to termination of services of a temporary employee, but rather to the issue whether in the case of contractual employment for a fixed term, mandamus can be issued continuing the employees is service. Surendra Prasad Tewari's case (supra) was again a case relating to regularization of services in public employment and the Supreme Court followed the ratio of the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Secretary of State, Karnataka (supra) and held that it would be improper for the Courts to give directions for regularization of services of persons working as daily-wager, ad hoc employee, probationers, temporary or contract employee, appointed without following the procedure laid down under Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution. XXX XXX XXX 26. In the light of the discussion above, in my opinion, the Petitioner was dismissed without affording him the opportunity of presenting his case before the disciplinary authority, thereby violating the protection guaranteed to temporary servants under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Further, the order of termination was not a discharge simplicitor but a dismissal, and was stigmatic and punitive in character. Also, the misconduct of the Petitioner was the foundation of the order of termination and not merely the motive. Resultantly, the impugned order of termination is held to be stigmatic and punitive and not sustainable. I, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 4th of June, 2004 and the consequent order in appeal dated the 1st of December, 2006 passed by the Respondent- Corporation. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Petitioner, with all consequential benefits. This, however, will not prevent the Respondents from taking action in accordance with law." Wp_6396_2024' \ \ \ . In Faheen vs. university of Kashmir & Ors/, it was observed as 12. follows; “that termination of temporary services on account of misconduct attaches a stigma and is punitive and cannot be done without holding a proper inquiry”. Thus, as seen from the expressions of the Apex Court and different 13. High Courts, if an order is founded on allegations, the order is stigmatic and punitive, the services of an employee cannot be dispensed with without affording him an opportunity of defending the accusations/allega tions. Even an employee on a contract cannot be terminated without allowing a hearing. Case at hand, as seen from the proceedings impugned, no opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner and thus, the order suffers from a violation of principles of natural justice. On that ground alone, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the Proceedings vide ESE13-KGBV/5/2024-SAI-SS-ANKP dated 06.03.2024 issued by the respondent. The respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner within two weeks from receipt of the copy of the order. The petitioner shall submit an explanation within two weeks thereafter. The authority shall 15. 2003 (Supp)JKJ 235 •t-- SRS, J Wp_6396_2024 / conduct an inquiry and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible. The 6*^ respondent shall complete the entire exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner shall not cause any delay and cooperate for the inquiry. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated 01.08.2024 KA