IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2625 OF 2025 Between: ■ Burl Nagamani. W/o Sankara Rao aged about 42 years, R/o 0-00, joguladumma Village, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh- 535526 ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Panchayati Raj and Rural Development), Department Secretariat buildings. Secretariat, Velagpudi, Amaravathi. The Commissioner, Village Development Department, Parvathipuram Manyam District. The Additional District Coorodinator Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, , Parvathipuram Manyam, Andhra Pradesh. The Project Director, D.W.M.A, Parvathipuram Manyam. The District Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Parvathpuram Manyam Vizianagaram. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the termination order dated. 22.01.2025 vide. Rc. No. 433/2024/H.R.M.S without conducting the proper enquiry without giving opportunity to submit my explanation and without considering the Grama an Theermanam' and also without to participate in the allowing the villagers and Grama enquiry is illegal, arbitrary .violative of Art. 14, 21 of Constitution aside the termination sarpanch unconstitutional and of India and consequently SET- order dated. 22.01.2025 vide. Rc. No.433/2024/ H.R.M.S issued by the respondent, ^ linconstitutional in the interest of justice. no. 3 as illegal, arbitrary and [A NO: 1 OF 907^ Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i pleased DIRECT the official and rejoin the petitioner into the disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: CPC praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be order services in the interest of justice pending respondents to revoke the termination GP FOR SERVICES - IV APHC010047912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2625/2025 Between: 1.BURI NAGAMANI, W/0 SANKARA RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/0 0-00, JOGULADUMMA VILLAGE, JIYYAMMAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 535526 ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETRARY (PANCHAYATI RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT), DEPARTMENT VELAGPUDI, AMARAVATHI. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS. SECRETARIAT, 2.THE COMMISSIONER, VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 3.THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COORODINATOR MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, , PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, D.W.M.A, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM. 5.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT. 6.THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PARVATHPURAM MANYAM, VIZIANAGARAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 pleased to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate direction declaring declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in the termination order dated. writ, order or issuing . .^u * ■ ■ 433/2024/H.R.M.S without conducting the proper enquiry without giving opportunity to submit my explanation and without considering the Grama Theermanam' and also without allowing the villagers and Grama sarpanch to participate in the enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitution al and violative of Art. 14 21 of Constitution of India and consequently SET-ASIDE the termination order dated. 22.01.2025 vide Rc. No.433/2024/ H.R.M.S issued illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional in the 22.01.2025 vide Rc. No. an by the respondent, no. 3 as interest of justice and pass 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 Phased to revoke the termination order and rejoin the in the interest of justice pending disposal of the direct the official respondents petitioner into the services i above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: •■■ORDER:: Heard Sri K.Sanjay, learned counsel representing Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government No.1, Sri respondent learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent appearing for Services Pleader for M.S.R.Chandramurthy to 5 and Sri G.Srinivas No.6. % 3 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 4 Rc.No.433/2024/H.R.M.C, dated 22.01.2025 (Ex.PO), the above respondent vide writ petition is filed. 3. A show cause notice cum suspension order was issued to the petitioner by the 4"’ respondent vide Rc.No.433/2024/H.R.M.C, dated 11.07.2024 (Ex.P5). Petitioner submitted an explanation dated 15.07.2024 (Ex.P7). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without a personal hearing, as mandated under Clause-13 of Field Resource Policy, 2013, the 4'^ respondent hence, the order is liable to be set aside. conducting Assistant Human passed the order impugned and V 5. Sri M.S.R.Chandramurthy, learned Standing respondents 2 to 5 counsel appearing for petitioner in pursuance of show cause notice vide Rc.No.433/2024/H.R.M.C, dated 11.07.2024 (Ex.P5), submitted explanation Thereafter, impugned proceedings vide 22.01.2025 (EX.P6) was passed considering the explanation. However, learned Standing counsel would fairly submit that the not conducted by the 4^*^ respondent while writ petition. on instructions would submit that, the dated 15.07.2024 (Ex.P7). Rc.No.433/2024/H.R.M.C, dated personal hearing was passing the order impugned in the 6. Clause-13 of Field Assistant Human Resource Policy disciplinary policy in respect of Field Assistants. Clause-13 (B) which is relevant are extracted herewith. “3.The delinquent Field Assistant shall be given 14 days time to resent the charges and give evidence in his defense by way of written submission. 2013, deals with Sub Clause 3 and 4 of 4. As soon as the personal hearing is completed, PD shall issue a speaking order based on the evidence from both sides and .4he quantum of punishment.” identifying / 4 Thus, a perusal of the extracted clauses mandates a personal hearing at the inquiry. 7. A perusal of Rc.No.433/2024/H.R.M.C, dated 22.01.2025 (Ex.P6) order impugned does not indicate conducting of a personal hearing. On that ground alone the proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. Apart from the above, no reasons were assigned by the 4‘^ respondent while passing the impugned order. 8. 9. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others* the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 10. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. 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. 11. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai' the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings impugned vide Rc.No.433/2024/H.R.M.C, dated 22.01.2025 (Ex.PO) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the 4'^ respondent. The learned 4‘^ respondent shall issue notices to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing. The petitioner shall appear personally and submit an explanation if any. Upon considering the explanation and hearing of the petitioner, the learned 4‘^ respondent shall pass orders by assigning reasons by following the timelines fixed ’ Assistant Human Resource Policy, 2013. 13. Field ^ f2010)9SCC496 ' (2010) 4 see 785 >(2008) 15 see 711 5 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTAN-^EGISTRAR SE^T^J^FtCER 1. The Principal Secretary, (Panchayati Raj and Rural Development) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Development Department, Parvathipuram ^oo’^^inator Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Pradesh^^^* Guarantee Scheme, Parvathipuram Manyam, Andhra 4. The Project Director, D.W.M.A, Parvathipuram Manyam. 5. The District Collector, ParvathipuramManyam District, vfzianl'garam®"^'’®'' Development Officer, Parvathpuram Manyam, 7. One CC to Sri P Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Services - IV, High Court of Andhra 9. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY// To, Pradesh. [OUT] RAM HIGH COURT DATED;04/02/2025 0 7 MAR 2025 ^ . Current Section ^ ORDER WP.No.2625 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS