IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATIV" (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2088 OF 2025 3K> V \ & ■& - a [<■ 19 7 0 y Between: 1. B.V. Ramana Murthy, S/o. Duryodhana, Aged 50 Years. Occ: Technical Assistant, R/o. D.No. 14-2-6, Gayatri School, Near Santhoshimata Temple, Collector Office Road. Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. 2. P. Balamukunda Babu, S/o. Ramachandrudu, Aged 52 Junior Engineer, O/o. Mandal Praja Parishad, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District. years, Occ; ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and^^ral Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner. Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Adjacent of Reliance Digital Showroom. Pathuru^^d, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District - 522501. 3. District Collector, Srikakulam Disfnct at Srikakulam 4. Project Dir^or-cum-Additional District Programme Coordinator for MGNREGS, District Water Management Agency, Srikakulam District - 532001. -532001. 5. Mandal Parishad Development Officer-cum- Programme Officer for MGNREGS, Mandal Praja Parishad, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District - 532001. W - . ...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 direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Letter vide Lr.No.PRROS- 28021 (34)/1/2024-HOD VIG SEC-CORD, dt. 08-11-2024 issued by the 2 respondent and the consequential Notice, dt. 28-12-2024 in Rc.No.16/2024/DVC/E2, issued by the 4*^ respondent thereby directed the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.5.96 lakhs from the 1st petitioner and Rs.5.95 lakhs from the 2""* petitioner which is an excess payment of Rs. 11.91 lakhs alleged to be paid to agency/vendor for the development of housing colony works done the said agency/vendor at Ragolu Gram Panchayat in Srikakulam Rural Mandal under Navaratnalu Pedalandariki lllu scheme within issuing show cause notice to the petitioners and inviting explanation/objections from the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Letter dt. 08-11- 2024 and Notice dt. 08-11- 2024 and Notice dt. 28-12-2024 issued by the Respondents 2 and 4 illegal and direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to repay the said amount referred in the Letter dt.08-11-2024 and Notice dt.28-12-2024 issued by the Respondents 2 and 4. nd as lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court p may be pleased to suspend the operation of Letter Lr.No.PRR05-vi de 28021 (34)/1/2024-HOD VIG SEC-CORD, dt. 08-11-2b^4 issued by the 2 dt. 28-12-2024 in nd respondent and the consequential Notice Rc.No.16/2024/DVC/E2, issued by the 4‘^ respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI M.S.R. CHANDRA MURTHY, SC FOR DWMA Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI G. SRINIVASULA REDDY, SC FOR MPDO The Court made the following: ORDER % APHC010036902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2088/2025 Between: B V Ramana Murthy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Ambati Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M S R Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel appeared on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and Sri G.Srinivasula Reddy, learned standing counsel appeared behalf of the 5'^^ respondent. The 1^* petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant under MGNREGS on 10.12.2007 on a contract basis. Presently he is working in the office of the 3'^'^ respondent. The 2"^^ respondent was appointed as a Technical Assistant in 2007 on a contract basis and presently working in the office of Mandal Praja Parishad, Sarubujjili Mandal at Srikakulam District. By proceedings vide Rc.No.30/2020 E2/DVC, dated 01.12.2020, ...RESPONDENT{S) on 2. th the 4 2 respondent placed the petitioners under suspension pointing out certain irregularities as per SRDS rules (Ex.P.5). The petitioners were reinstated into service by proceedings Rc.No.30/2020/E2/DVC, dated 22.05.2021 issued by the 4**^ respondent (Ex.P.6). The 4**^ respondent issued notice vide Rc.No.40/2020/MGNREGS, dated 21.01.2021 directing the contractor to repay an amount of Rs.12,91, 959/-, alleging that the said amount was paid (Ex.P.2) in excess. The contractors submitted an explanation dated 03.02.2021 (Ex.P.3) and filed W.P.No.3066 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate bench of this Court on 08.09.2022 (Ex.P.4) directing the respondent authorities to follow due process of law for determining the amount to be recovered, by observing principles of natural justice. Till the determination of the amount to be payable, the respondents are directed not to demand payment of the amount and further directed not to deduct any bills pending with the authorities. 3. nd 4. Be that as it may, the 2 Lr.No.PRR05-28021(34)/1/2024/HOD VIG SEC-CORD, dated 08/11/2024 (Ex.P.7). A perusal of the said letter would indicate about certain allegations against one H.Kurma Rao, the then Project Director, DWMA, Srikakulam District regarding the work executed by Smt.Chitti Lalitha, Sarpanch, Lankaam Gram Panchayat and the observations of the Commissioner, RD and to take necessary action. In the said communication the 2'"'^ respondent directed the 3^^ respondent to take necessary action and to submit a report to the Government on the following points. respondent addressed a letter vide (a) 50% excess payment to be recovered from b.V.Ramana Murthy, T.A. i.e., Rs.5.96 lakhs; (b) 50% excess payment to be recovered from P.Balamukunda Babu, J.E, i.e. Rs.5.95 lakhs; 3 (c) Necessary disciplinary action shall be initiated against the above individuals for misappropriation as per the SRDS rules in vogue in addition to the recovery: (d) The withheld amount need not be paid to the vendor since the amount paid to the vendor is already in excess to the work executed in the field. In pursuance of the said letter, the 4*^^ respondent issued notice vide Rc.No.16/2024/DVC/E2, dated 28.12.2024 directing the petitioners to remit Rs.5,96,000/- and Rs.5,95,000/- respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that before issuing Ex.P8 notice, impugned in the writ petition, no inquiry was conducted. Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murty, learned standing counsel would fairly submit that no inquiry was conducted before issuance of Ex.P.8 notice. However, the notice was issued, in pursuance of Ex.P.7 letter, addressed by the 2 respondent to the 3^^ respondent. Learned standing counsel would also submit that the inquiry initiated against the petitioners vide Rc.No.30/2020 E2/DVC, dated 01.12.2020 is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply would submit that the proceedings dated 01.12.2020 are in nature of suspension, but not show- cause notice. Regarding the allegation of misappropriation of funds, so far, no notice has been issued to the petitioners in that regard. Thus, as seen from the pleadings and the submissions, there is no dispute regarding the petitioners’ suspension and their reinstatement into service. The letter addressed by the 2""' respondent to the respondent would indicate observations of the Commissioner, Rural Development and a detailed report submitted to the Government vide 2"'^ reference. Neither Ex.P.7 nor Ex.P.8 would disclose the conducting of inquiry against the petitioners and their participation. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel 6. 7. nd / I 8. 9. 4 for the petitioner and endorsement by the learned standing counsel no inquiry was conducted in that regard. The notice issued by the 4*^ respondent directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.5,96,000/- and Rs.5,95,000/- respectively, without conducting an inquiry, in the considered opinion of this court violates principles of Natural Justice. The respondent authorities should have adhered to the principles oi Audi Alteram Partem. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the notice vide Rc.No.16/2024/DVC/E2, dated 28.12.2024 (Ex.P.8). However, this order will not preclude the authorities to issue notice and conduct an inquiry by following the Rules and pass appropriateorders. No order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Adjacent of Reliance Digital Showroom, Pathuru Road, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District - 522501. The District Collector, Srikakulam District at Srikakulam - 532001. The Project Director-cum-Additional District Programme Coordinator for MGNREGS, District Water Management Agency, Srikakulam District - 532001. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer-cum- Programme Officer for MGNREGS, Mandal Praja Parishad, Srikakulam Mandal, Srikakulam District - 532001. One CC to Sri Srinivas Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] One CC to Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, SC for DWMA (OPUC) One CC to Sri G. Srinivasula Reddy, SC for MPDO (OPUC) Three C.D. Copies //TRUE COPY// To, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2085 ORDER WP.No.2088 of 2025 g 15 MAR 2025 ^ Current Section ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS