IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11696 OF 2025 Between: K. Ramachandra, S/o Subbanna, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Field Assistant, Residing at D.No. 3/49, R.T Palli, Kadapa, Y.S.R Kadapa District, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and rural development Department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector cum District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS, YSR Kadapa District, Kadapa. 3. Project Director cum Additional District, Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS District water Management Agency, Y.S.R Kadapa District. ...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 an order or writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in RC.No. C9/677/Chintakommadinne Mandal/18 S.A/2024, dated 17.04.2025, passed by the 3rd respondent, and thereby terminating the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, Peddakampalli Gram Panchayat, Chintakommadin ne Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, without issuing show cause notice, without conducting enquiry, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 19-09-2024 and 27-03-2025 and without passing a speaking % order, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme ’ ' Act 2005 and contrary to Field Assistants Human Resource Policy vide Circular No. 666/EGS (P) /2012, dated 08-01-2013 and consequently to set • aside the impugned proceedings dated 17.04.2025 as illegal and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service for the said post. / / . lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the proceedings in RC.No. C9/677/ Chintakommadinne Mandal/18 S.A/2024, dated 17.04.2025, passed by the 3rd respondent, and reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY The Court made the following: ORDER 7 APHC010221972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11696/2025 Between: K Ramachandra ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2 The Court made the following; ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- ...to issue an order or writ or direction more particularly the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings RC.No.C9/677/Chintakommadinne Mandal/18 S. A/2024, dated 17.04.2025 passed by the 3'^^ respondent and therby terminating the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, Peddakampalli Gram Panchayat, Chintakommadinne Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District, without issuing show cause notice, without conducting enquiry. one in in without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 19.09.2024 and 27.03.2025 and without passing a speaking order, as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violation of the provisions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005 and contrary to Field Assistants Human Resource Policy vide Circular No.666/EGS(P)/2012, dated 08.01.2013 and consequently to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 17.04.2025 as illegal and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service for the said post and pass such other order or orders...." in 2. Heard Sri.T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant, Peddakampalli Gram Panchayat, under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) on 31.07.2006. Based on certain allegations, respondent No.3 has issued show cause notice cum suspension order by proceedings dated 29.08.2024. Petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 27.03.2025 refuting the aforesaid allegations. Later, after 3 . holding hearing 17.04.2025 respondent No.3 has terminating the passed i'mpugned proceedings dated petitioner from services. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits findings on the explanation i mind to the that the i'mpugned order does not record eny specific \ explanation offered petitioner, No.3 has by the " “'^^Werable, Respondent except stating that the not really applied his recorded specific contents of the findings. Further, he has forming his same in a perspective and proper merely gone by own opinion. the decision of the presiding officer rather than ® Sri M.S.R.Chandra No.3 tried to Murthy, learned sustain the order by Standing Counsel for respondent explanation of the and only thereafter contending that the personal hearing petitioner was impugned order has submission that the i considered in the been passed. However impugned order does be does not refute the specific reasons. not provide for 6. On perusal of the i respondent No.3 has reasons to decision of the impermissible. When impugned order, it is '^ery much candid that not recorded any specific finding by providing a decision. Merely, supporting come to such he has conducted public hearing of the rules framed proceeded on the presiding officer who > which is also Ihe scheme Respondent No.3 is bestowed Therefore, having i under Act, 2022 disciplinary authority, incumbent upon him and take with the powers as he cause notice it is i issued show consider all the objections to raised during the hearing pragmatic view 4 of such objections by recording findings with supporting reasons. As quasi- Judicial Authority, it is prerequisite to follow the same. 7. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan\ the Hon’ble I Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. reasons in 8. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota v. M/S.Shukla & Brothers^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions,whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. 9. In State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jai^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the I same it becomes lifeless. 10. In view of the same, the Writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The impugned order RC.No.C9.677/Chintakommadinne Mandal/18 S.A/2024 dated 17.04.2025 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside and the matter is remanded back for de nova consideration. Respondent No.3 is directed to provide opportunity of hearing to petitioner and pass fresh order within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this ^ (2010) 9 see 496 ^ (2010) 4 see 785 ^ (2008) 15 see 711 5 order and till such time, petitioner shall be continued to discharge his duties Field Assistant.” as Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. 11. no As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. REGISTdad Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSlSTANTiREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector cum District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS, YSR Kadapa District, Kadapa. 3. The Project Director cum Additional District, Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS District water Management Agency, Y.S.R Kadapa District. 4. One CC to Sri T Diwakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri M S R Chandra Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies .uiai development TF high court DATED;05/05/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.11696 of 2025 disposing of the W.P., WITHOUT COSTS