IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE O u A S>, PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 60 OF 2025 Between: Julupalli Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Julupalli Imam Khasim, Aged about ^ years, R/o. D.No.2/138, Veeraballi Village Kadapa, Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Secretariat Velgapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The District Collector, Rayachotti, Annamayya District The Project Director, District Water Management Agency (DWMA) Rayachotti, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh. The Additional District Programme Co-Ordinator, District Water Management Agency (DWMA), Rayachotti, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer/Programm Officer, MGNREGS, Veeraballi Mandal, Annamayya District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents 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 an order, direction, writ, more particularly Writ of r Mandamus declaring impugned R.C.NO.A/24350/HR/TERMINATION/2024, dated 19.12.2024 passed by the .3 respondent wherein permanently removed the petitioner from the post of'Field Assistant at Veeraballi Village, Veeraballi Mandal, Kadapa the proceedings in District, without issuing any notice before conducting enquiry, conducting the enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and without supplying the enquiry report as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGS) and violative of Article, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide R.C.No.A/24350/HR/ TERMINATION/2024 dated 19.12.2024 by reinstating the petitioner into service. lA 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 reinstate the petitioner as Field Assistant at Veeraballi Village, Veeraballi Mandal, Kadapa District by suspending the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide R.C.NO.A/24350/HR/ TERMINATION/2024, dated 19.12.2024, forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY SC FOR MGNREGS The Court made the following order: APHC010603222024 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: 60/2025 Between: Julupalli Mahaboob Basha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KRAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Smt.Y.Mahalakshmi learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghuveer, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for 5‘^ respondent. 2; A show cause notice vide Rc.No.A/2022/HR/TOC/2024, dated T9.11.2024 (Ex.P3) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the explanation dated 03.12.2024 (Ex.P2). By order vide RC.NO.A/24350/HR/TERMINATION/2024, dated 19.12.2024 (Ex.P1) the petitioner’s contract was terminated permanently. 3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without considering the petitioner’s explanation and assigning reasons, the order impugned was passed. Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for the 5 respondent would submit that against the order passed by the 3'"^ respondent an appeal would lie to the 2'"'^ respondent. 4. The point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings Impugned dated 19.12.2024 are sustainable for want of the reasons? 5. It is a settled principle of law that the administrative authority or quasi judicial authority must assign reasons while passing orders. Reasons are the heart and soul of every order passed by administrative authority or quasi judicial authority. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others' the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 6. 7. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota Vs. 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 its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. 8. \ ' f2010)9SCC496 -H-(2Q10)4SCC 785 In State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Prasad JaP the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 9. A perusal of Ex.P1 order, it is running into three pages. Except for one paragraph on Page No.3, the entire order of three pages discloses the imputations and the explanation. The only consideration by the authorities is that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and the petitioner failed to submit relevant evidence hence, the charges against the petitioner are proved. The order impugned does not even indicate considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 03.12.2024 (Ex.P2). 10. Thus, it is apparent, that the authority neither considered the explanation nor passed a reasoned order. Given the discussion, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned proceedings vide RC.NO.A/24350/HR/TERMINATION/2024, dated 19.12.2024 (Ex.P1) issued by 3'"'^ respondent are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 3 respondent. The learned 3 12. rd rd respondent shall consider the objections objectively and, if necessary, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. The entire exercise shall be completed within three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT] REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC FFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Velgapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Rayachotti, Annamayya District. 3. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency (DWMA) Rayachotti, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Additional District Programme Co-Ordinator, District Water Management Agency (DWMA), Rayachotti, Annamayya District, Pradesh. 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer/Programm Officer, MGNREGS, Veeraballi Mandal, Annamayya District. 6. One CC to Sri. K Raghu Veer Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. M S R Chandra Murthy SC for MGNREGS 8. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court Of Andhra 9. Three CD Copies Andhra [OPUC] Pradesh. [OUT] GSC t, HIGH COURT DATED:07/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.60 of 2025 2 9 JAN 207) I Current Section ^*>i£espATO«^^ DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS