IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA (Special Original Jurisdiction) . FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No: 40018 OF 2022 Between: D. Chinna Hussain, S/o D.Pedda Kasim, aged about 45 years, Occ: Time Scale Employee, Frozen Semen Bank, Nandyal, R/o. 7/12 Maham Street, Kanala, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary to the Govt, of AP, Animal Husbandry, Dairy & Fisheries Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. The Chief Executive Officer, AP Live Stock Development Agency, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Frozen Semen Bank section, Nandyal. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...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 a writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the letter in ROC.No.2904/VC/G2/2022, dt.25-10-2022 issued by the 2'^'^ respondent to terminate the petitioner service by following the rules & procedure as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and spent more than 48 hours in judicial custody, and the 3 rd rp^portdent issued Memo ROC.No.3627/B/2022, dt.29-10-2022 requesting nd tl|e. 4 respondent to submit action taken report for submission to the 2 l^spondent, and the 4**^ respondent terminating the service of the petitioner in proceedings in LR.ROC.No.218/B/2022, dt.01-11-2022 is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the ARCS (CC & A) Rules, and to quash or set aside the same, and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. lA No: 1 OF 2022 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by suspending the letter in ROC.No.2904A/C/G2/2022, dt.25-10-2022 issued by the 2"^ respondent and the letters, dt.29-10-2022 and on 01-11-2022 by the respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010674342022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 40018/2022 Between: D. Chinna Hussain ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ARAJENDRABABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER:- Heard Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 4‘^ respondent terminating the services of the petitioner on account of alleged involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case, which resulted in the petitioner being in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Casual Laborer in Frozen Semen Bank, Nandyal on 24.03.1990. After 2. 3. 2 working as such, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 17.02.2011 minimum time scale of pay was granted to the petitioner by the 4‘^ respondent. It is stated that the 4**" respondent vide Memo dated 14.09.2022, called for explanation of the petitioner for his absence from 12.07.2022 to 14.09.2022. The petitioner filed his explanation before the 4**^ respondent to the said notice explaining about his absence as his judicial custody on account of a false case foisted against him. The 2^^ respondent i.e., the Director of the Animal Husbandry Department, has vide letter dated 25.10.2022, observed that since the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, he should be terminated from service and directed the 3'^*^ respondent to submit action taken report after following due process under law. The 3'^^ respondent accordingly sought report from the 4*^ respondent. In pursuance thereof, the 4‘^ respondent passed impugned proceedings, terminating the petitioner from service. Challenging the the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is not in accordance with the established procedures of framing charges and conducting enquiry. It is contended that the petitioner was never put on notice before passing the impugned order. The petitioner contends that it is only pursuant to the directions of the superior officers in hierarchy, the order of 4. 5. 6. same, 7. termination is passed, which is not only violating of the principles of natural justice but is arbitrary and unjust. The 4'^ respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner is not a regular employee but a contingent employee on a time scale. No charges were framed against the petitioner to provide him with any opportunity. Since the petitioner is not a Government servant, the procedure provided for the removal of the employee and calling for an explanation would not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the order of termination would cast a stigma on the petitioner and that terminating the services of the petitioner violates the provisions of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ratanlal Malviya Vs. State of M.P.,^ wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the terminating the services of a quasi permanent servant without holding the enquiry cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further relies on the decision of the Division Bench of erstwhile composite High Court in the case of .V.VR.K.Srinivas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Endowments Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others^, wherein this Court observed that be it a worker or employee whatever may be the status of his employment cannot be terminated by a punitive or stigmatic order holding him guilty of misconduct or the like, without following the principles of natural justice. It was further observed that merely because a worker or employee is either casual or not borne out on the muster 8. 9. ^ 1994 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 73 ^2017 (3) ALT 566 (D.B) 4 rolls, the same would not constitute a valid ground for passing a stigmatic order. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P.Shere Vs. Union of India and Others^, wherein it was observed that when there is a master and servant relationship, the employee should be made aware of defect in his work or deficiencies in his performance. Without any such communication, if his services are terminated as unsuitability, the said decision would be an arbitrary in decision making process. 10. The learned Government Pleader submits that A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules would not apply to the petitioner since he was appointed as a Casual Laborer, later minimum time scale was granted and since and the alleged offence has nothing to do with his discharge of official duties, therefore, no enquiry was contemplated. He thus prays for upholding of the impugned order. Considered the rival submissions. From the perusal of the record, it would reveal that the 2'^'^ respondent directed the 3^^ / 4**^ respondent to terminate the petitioner's service after following the due procedure. In contrast, the 4**" respondent, while terminating the services of the petitioner, did not even call for an explanation from the petitioner. 11. 12. The petitioner stated to have been working in the respondent organization since 1990. The basis for the impugned order is the proceedings 13. ^ AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1431 5 of the 2^^ respondent, who felt that since the petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, he should not be retained in service and thus directed the 3^^ respondent to terminate the petitioner from service. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla"*, observed as follows: A temporary government servant can, howeve,r be dismissed from service by way of punishment Wheneve,r the competent authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a temporary servant is not satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his unsuitability, misconduct or inefficiency, it may either terminate his services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sen/ice or the relevant rules or It may decide to take punitive action against the temporary government servant. If It decides to take punitive action it may hold a formal inquiry by framing charges and giving opportunity to the government servant in accordance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. Since, a temporary government servant is also entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) in the same manner as a permanent government servant, very often, the question arises whether an order of termination is in accordance with the contract of service and relevant rules regulating the temporary employment or it is by way of punishment. It Is now well settled that the form of the order is not conclusive and it is open to the court to determine the true nature of the order ” 7. From the facts, it can safely be concluded that the order impugned, which is consequent to the directions of the 2^^ respondent, directing the termination of services of the petitioner on account of his judicial custody, casts a stigma against the petitioner and is punitive. The settled principle of law is that the person should be put on notice wherever a major 14. 4 (1991)1 see 691 6 penalty is proposed. In this case, the order or termination is in the nature of punishment without prior show cause notice or enquiry. Having regard to the same, the order impugned is not sustainable. 15. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to the Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, Animal Husbandry, Dairy & Fisheries Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, AP Live Stock Development Agency, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Frozen Semen Bank section Nandyal. 5. One CC to Sri A.Rajendra Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER X 25JUN 2025 ^ . Current Secnon ^irSPATCW^^'^ WP.No.40018 of 2022 m, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS