IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No: 17989 OF 2019 Between: Boyina Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Demudu, Aged 33 years, Occ: Field Assistant (Removed), R/o. Jagannadhapuram Village, Tagarampudi Post, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER 1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. District Collector-cum-District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Project Director-cum-Additional District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS, District Water Management Agency, Visakhapatnam District. AND ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for entire records connected to order dt. 23.08.2019 passed in Procdgs. Rc. No.455/2018/HR Cell on the file of 2"^^ respondent thereby confirming the Order dt. 31.05.2018 in L.Dis.No. 194/2018(HR Cell) passed by the 3'"^ respondent, examine and set aside the above orders after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence, vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence on record, non-exercise of jurisdiction, violative of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to reinstate the petitioner from the said post and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the lA NO: 2 OF 2019 case. Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the 'operation of Order dt. 31.05.2018 in L.Dis.No.194/2018(HR Cell) passed by the O'"* respondent as confirmed by Order dt. 23.08.2019 passed in Pfbcdgs.Rc.No.455/2018/HR Cell on the file to 4 to of 2 respondent and conseqCibhtly direct the respondents 2 reinstate the petitioner into service in the post of Field Assistant i Mettapalem Gram Panchayat, Ahakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the main AAThf Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. ' in Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent No.i: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RUAL DEV (AP) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: ^PL C FOR NREGS (SRI MSR CHANDRA MURTHY) Counsel for the Respondent No 3: SRI MSR CHANDRA MURTHY The Court made the following; " 1 APHC010376462019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17989/2019 Between: Boyina Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2.M S R CHANDRA MURTHY 3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT(S) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer; ‘ to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for entire records connected to order 2 dt.23.08.2019 passed in Procdgs.Rc.No.455/2018/HR Cell on the file of 2'^'^respondent thereby confirming the Order dt. 31.05.2018 L.Dis.No.194/2018(HR Cell) passed by the 3^^ respondent, examine and set aside the above orders after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence, violated by non-consideration of material evidence on record, non-exercise of jurisdiction, violative of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 to reinstate the petitioner in the said post and to pass such other order or orders ” m Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appearing for the 1®* respondent and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Special Counsel for MGNREGS, appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked as a Field Assistant, Mettapalem Gram Panchayat on contract basis since his appointment in the year 2008 under MGNREG Scheme. Learned counsel would further submit that the said agreement was extended from time to time. While so, he was terminated by the respondent No.3 vide orders dated 20.03.2018 and the petitioner has challenged the said order in W.P.No.11038 of 2018. The said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the termination order and directed the respondents to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was terminated again on 31.05.2018, against which, he preferred appeal before the District Collector. The District Collector without examining the appeal independently, just confirmed the order of the 3 ^^s^plinary authority. Learned counsel would submit that the preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of termination and matter may be remanded for passing orders afresh. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the employment of the petitioner as Field Assistant is purely a contractual employment and it ended on 30.06.2013. The villagers of Mettapalem Gram Panchayat made a complaint to respondent No.3, on 29.10.2017 against the petitioner alleging that he has committed some irregularities. The Assistant Project Director, Chodavaram Cluster was appointed to conduct enquiry and he has submitted a report to respondent No.3, following which, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his explanation.Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from service. The individual carried the matter to the High Court, wherein the matter is remanded by setting aside the termination order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court, after giving opportunity of personal hearing, the services of the petitioner are terminated.Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the respondents have followed the procedure laid down as per the Circular dated 08.12.2013. When they have followed the prescribed procedure properly, the indulgence of this Court is unwarranted. Learned Standing 4. 4 Counsel finally submits that the petitioner committed irregularities, due to which, he was terminated.The contention that the preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to him is not correct. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. \ 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record would reveal that, it is a fact that the villagers made a complaint against the petitioner pointing out some irregularities. The Assistant Project Director conducted enquiry and the petitioner was placed under suspension and a show-cause notice was issued. The petitioner furnished his explanation and he was terminated. The petitioner preferred W.P.No.11038 of 2018 challenging the termination order on the grounds of violation of Principles of Natural Justice and the said Writ Petition was allowed.By virtue of directions in W.P.No.11038 of 2018, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing and he was terminated from service.The individual preferred an appeal before the District Collector and that rejected vide orders dated 21.07.2019. The respondent authorities followed procedure as per the Circular No.666/EGS(P)/2012, dated 08.01.2013 while terminating the services of the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of personal hearing. Unless it is a case of disproportionate punishment to the alleged misconduct, this Court cannot interfere on the factual aspects of the matter. was 5 6. In the light of the discussion referred supra, the impugned order does not brook interference of this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '.I'-'; ,'/ 1. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS AMEiATI Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SPLC FOR NREGS (MSR CHANDRA MURTHY) [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI MSR CHANDRA MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCS to'GPTQR PANCHAYAT RAJ RUAL DEV (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies gsg .*7 -r'' ,i HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.17989 of 2019 ^ 19 SEP 2025 ^ rranlSKlie- geaisssL C5-, Co DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS