1 APHC010506192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 26788/2025 Between: 1. YALLAMILLI RAJESWARI,, W/O. SRINIVAS RAO, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD, R/O.10TH LINE, KOPPARAO COLONY, BADRAVATHI NAGAR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AP. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, INTELLIGENCE, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.26788 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order in Rc.No.3521/B1/2025, dated 02.09.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 in removing the Petitioner from the rolls of Home Guard in Intelligence Department without conducting any enquiry, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Home Guard with general No.267 in Intelligence Department on 15.06.2016. Subsequently, the office was shifted to Amaravati. While so, a show-cause notice was issued on 11.07.2025 calling upon the Petitioner to submit the explanation with regard to her involvement in a criminal case i.e., Crime No.111 of 2025 of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Anakapalli District, registered for the offences under Sections 85, 89, 351(2) read with 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 92(b) of Disability Act. 3. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner submitted an explanation stating that one Garikina Pushpa Bhavani made a complaint 3 against her husband and included her name with false allegations. It is stated that on the basis of the complaint, the Petitioner was implicated in the criminal case on the ground that the Petitioner is living with her husband. In the explanation it was stated that she was married to Vigneswarapu Srinivasa Rao on 12.04.2014 and that there has a son by name Vigneswarapu Rishanth Varun who is aged about seven years and that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case. 4. Subsequently, the Respondent No.2 issued another show- cause notice on 31.07.2025 stating that the explanation of the Petitioner was inadequate and not satisfactory and her involvement in the criminal case has brought disrepute to the Intelligence Department and the Petitioner called upon to give explanation in detail. 5. The Petitioner again gave explanation explaining the falsity of the criminal case registered against her. 6. On the basis of the explanation, the impugned order of removal was passed on the ground that the Petitioner had 4 involved in the criminal case as well as her unauthorized absence on 12.05.2025 and she least bothered to report for duty. Hence, the writ petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner submitted explanations to the show-cause notices dated 11.07.2025 and 31.07.2025 and without conducting any enquiry the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The further contention was that the impugned order was on account of unauthorized absence which is not the subject in the show-cause notice. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the order of removal was passed after enquiry into the allegations made against the Petitioner and on account of her unauthorized absence. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader did not dispute the fact that enquiry was not conducted against the Petitioner regarding the allegations made against her in the criminal case. 9. Heard the respective counsel. 5 10. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 11. In the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, the reason appears to be unauthorized absence of the Petitioner on 12.05.2025 and the same was not the ground for which show- cause notices were issued on 11.07.2025 and 31.07.2025 to the Petitioner. In that view, the impugned order being in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Oraon v. the State of Jharkhand and others 1 held that finding of guilt of a charge for which the petitioner was not put on notice is violative of principles of natural justice. The Paragraph Nos.30, 31, 32 and 33 are extracted below; <30. A deeper concern now beckons our attention. We shall place the appellants’ termination under the sharp lens of natural justice. 31. In the show cause notices issued to the appellants, a question was raised about them not fulfilling the eligibility criterion of having secured a minimum of 45% marks in their intermediate examination. The validity of their graduation certificates was also questioned. The appellants replied by 1 2025 INSC 1212 = 2025 Livelaw(SC)1009 6 stating that they secured more than 40% marks in their intermediate examination, which perfectly fulfilled the eligibility criterion. To wit, it was their contention that being members of the Scheduled Tribe, they were entitled to a 5% relaxation of marks. As regards the graduation certificate, it was made clear that the same was not a requirement for appointment of a teacher for Classes I-V and the same was provided only for the sake of completeness. However, on the very next day, the respondents terminated their services by following a course of action which shocks our conscience. 32. Why is this course of action shocking? The appellants, in their replies to the show cause notices, had categorically demonstrated that they were not required to secure 45% marks in their intermediate examination. They were required to secure more than 40% marks in the intermediate examination, which they did secure. Confronted with this situation, the respondents conveniently proceeded to terminate the appellants’ services by computing their marks after excluding the marks secured in the vocational subject. Significantly, the allegation that the appellants had failed to secure 40% marks (after exclusion of marks secured in the vocational subject) in the intermediate examination did not even figure as an allegation in the show cause notices. Therefore, findings were returned by the respondents which were at variance with the allegations levelled in the show cause notices. The appellants having successfully defended the allegations, the respondents were precluded in law from proceeding with such notices. In the absence of fresh show cause notices specifically requiring the appellants to explain why the marks secured in the vocational subject should not be taken into account for determining their overall percentage, in our considered view, the appellants had been denied a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and the termination orders are wholly unsustainable and stand vitiated being in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7 33. The present is akin to a situation where the noticee successfully defends the charge against him but is made to suffer civil consequences because the notifier finds the noticee guilty of a different charge in respect whereof he is not put to notice. In such a case, the finding of guilt which is at variance with the original charge without proper opportunity to respond offends due process and renders any order or action unsustainable.= 12. Secondly, the explanations of the Petitioner regarding her innocence of the allegations were not considered by the 2nd Respondent Authority and the impugned order was passed merely on account of her involvement in a criminal case. 13. Thirdly, it is to be noted that a mere involvement in a criminal case will not be a ground for termination of the employee as the criminal case is only a complaint. Until and unless, the allegations in the complaint stand established either by way of a penal verdict by the concerned Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2025. Respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner into service. Further, the Respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if 8 so advised against Petitioner, in compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 16.10.2025 Ivd 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.26788 of 2025 Dated: 16.10.2025 Ivd