IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRILljg TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16811 OF 2019 Between: Palla Venkata Naidu, S/o. Rami Naidu, aged 41 years, Occ- Shift Operator at Chinnakudhuma 33/11 KV Sub Station, R/o. Jiyyammavalasa Mandalam, Vizianagaram District ...Petitioner AND 1. The A.P.E.P.D.G.L, Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), (APEPDCL), Bobbin, Vizianagaram District. The Superintending Electrical Engineer(Operations), (APEPDCL), Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. The Executive Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. The Vishnu Priya Engineering Works, Plot No. 114 and 115, APIIC Growth Centeer, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, Rep.by its Proprietor Sri Sangala Ramesh. 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 a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents particularly 5th respondent in passing P6, the impugned termination order dated Nil me. oil terminating the petitioner from service as shift operator, ChinnaKudhuma 33/11 KV Sub Station, APEPDCL, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, atrocious, without notice, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 as shift operator, Chinnakudhuma 33/11 KV Sub Station APEPDCL, by suspending the operation of the termination order Dt. Nil, in the interest justice, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. G TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following Order: 1 APHC010352592019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16811/2019 Between: ...PETITIONER Palla Venkata Naidu, AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The A P E P D C L and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GTUH1N KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2.. The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. 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 Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents particularly 5th respondent in passing the impugned termination order dated Nil (Ex.P6, page No.16) terminating the petitioner from service as shift operator, Chinna Kudhuma 33/11 2 KV Sub Station, APEPDCL, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional , atrocious, without notice, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same, and pass such other order or orders ” 2. Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, respondents 1 to 4. petitioner and Sri appearing for the 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 354, 342, 199, 323, 324, 109 r/w Sections 3 (1) (r) and (s), 3 (2) (va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 131 and 132 of R.P. Act. The petitioner was engaged by respondent No.5 to work in the office of respondents 1 and 2. 149 IPC and under 1989 and Sections He is an outsourcing employee. Soon after receiving the report from the police about registration of the case and arrest of the petitioner relating to that case, the respondent No.5 terminated the petitioner in quite violation of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.1 issued certificate that the petitioner worked in their office and he can apply for any post. In that view, the termination of the petitioner simply because a criminal case has been lodged and arrested, is not tenable under law is the primary contention. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi/, at para No.12, wherein it was observed that: '(2013) 15 see 570 3 “The law presumes an accused to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights including the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) 4. Further, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23697 of 2024 between D. Usha Rani v. State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department and others, wherein when the services of the petitioner/outsourcing employee terminated by proceedings issued by respondent No.4, the said writ were petition was allowed with the following observation: ‘Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.1Spi/APMS GH/2024 dated 18.04.2024 are hereby set aside. Respondent No.4 shall issue notice afresh to the petitioner and conduct an enquiry, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner, and pass a reasoned order. Based on the enquiry report, the respondent shall decide on the services of the petitioner. The above exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from receipt of the copy of the order. No costs. ” (emphasis supplied) 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.5, who is a Contractor to attend the work by respondent No.1. Respondent No.5 passed termination order. There is no direct relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 as employee and employer. It is argued that the petitioner 4 has to approach the appropriate authorities, but not this Court by preferring the writ petition. The writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel representing both parties and on careful scrutiny of the materia! placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.5 and he was terminated by respondent No.5. The pleadings in the affidavit also would also show that the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.5 as Admittedly, respondent No.5 is a Contractor. well as terminated by him. Prima facie, there is no relationship of employer and employee with Respondent No.1 and the petitioner. There cannot be any question of dispute about the legal position which is referred supra, but the ratio in the judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. In W.P.No.23697 of 2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court dealt with a case where the petitioner had applied for the post of Warden through an outsourcing agency. The agency informed the petitioner of her appointment as Warden at the Model School Girls Hostel in Maddikera, and she began discharging her duties accordingly. Subsequently, a committeecomprising the Additional Project Coordinator and the Girl Child Development Officer inspected the hostel and submitted a preliminary report alleging certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner. However, the authorities terminated her services without conducting any enquiry or affording her an opportunity to be heard. As a result, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the authorities to issue notice to the petitioner and conduct a proper enquiry 5 before taking any further action. In contrast, the present case involves respondent No.5, who is a private contractor. Since the petitioner was engaged through a private agency and not directly by the State or any public authority, the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding his termination, the appropriate remedy lies in approaching the competent forum, such as a civil court or labour court, rather than seeking relief through a writ petition. 8. There is no record or legal basis to suggest that respondents 1 to 4 had any role in the employment, supervision, or termination of the petitioner, or that respondent No.5 was acting as an agent of the State in a manner that would invite constitutional obligations under Article 12. The certificate issued by respondent No.1 merely acknowledges the petitioner’s deployment and does not establish an employer-employee relationship or statutory responsibility. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The expression “life” in Article 21 has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court in several decisions, most notably in Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation,^ where it was held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life. It is equally settled that for Article 21 to be invoked in a writ proceeding under Article 226, the impugned action must be attributable to the State or its instrumentalities. In the present case, respondent No.5, the entity who issued the termination order, is a " (1985) 3 see 545 6 4#- private contractor and not a State actor within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. There is no material to suggest that respondent No.5 was discharging any public duty or exercising any statutory power in relation to the petitioner’s termination. Therefore, while the petitioner may have a valid grievance concerning the abruptness and unfairness of the termination, such action does not attract constitutional scrutiny under writ jurisdiction per se. The remedy, if any, lies in pursuing appropriate proceedings before a civil court or labour tribunal where the question of fairness of termination and entitlement to reinstatement or compensation can be adjudicated based on evidence. In conclusion, since the impugned termination was carried out by a private party not amenable to Article 226 in the present circumstances, this Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. In result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGI^RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. OneCCto Sri. G Tuhin Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. V V Satish (SC for APEPDCL) [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.16811 of 2019 Of ANO^ ^ to SEP 2025 ^ . Current Section DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS