1 APHC010065282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3436/2025 Between: K Ananda Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following ORDER: Assailing the proceedings vide APSRTC No.P2/118(01)/2023-MDWD, dated 28.01.2025 (Ex.P.16) issued by the 3rd respondent wherein the petitioner was removed from services, the above writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri P.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Vinod Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 to 4. 2 3. A charge sheet vide No.P2/118(01)/2023-HDWD dated 18.03.2024 (Ex.P.7) was issued to the petitioner because of his involvement in Crime No.15/2023 dated 17.09.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act on the file of Donkarai Police Station. The petitioner submitted a representation (Ex.P.8) and requested to provide copies of certain documents. The petitioner made representation dated 17.06.2024 (Ex.P.9) to respondents 3 and 4 not to proceed with domestic inquiry since a criminal case is pending. The petitioner made another representation dated 17.06.2024 to the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension and also not to proceed further in the Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13806 of 2024. By placing reliance upon the decision reported in M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., and Ors1, an interim order was granted on 03.07.2024 staying the Departmental proceedings for six months. The interim order granted on 03.07.2024 expired by afflux of time on 02.01.2025. 5. The domestic inquiry was completed on 03.07.2024 and the inquiry officer submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority communicated the inquiry report to the petitioner by proceedings dated 07.01.2025. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 16.01.2025. In the explanation, it was specifically contended as follows: “Adverting to the Domestic Enquiry Report, this is to submit:- (1)There issued the Circular No.125/1978-79 dt.01.02.1979 on “Dos” and DONTs” in regard to enquiries in respect of disciplinary matters. (2) The instructions contained in the Circular are: The Officer/Official enquiring into the case shall:- (A) First examine the witnesses of the complainant, then (B) The complainant/prosecution, afterwards 1 AIR 1999 SC 141 3 (C) The witness of the employee charged and then lastly (D) Record the statement of the employee charged (3) But, the Enquiry Officer failed to follow the instructions. (4) From the above, it is crystal clear that the Enquiry officer predetermined to hold me responsible for the “Charges” leveled against me and was baised in favour of the management. (5) Holding of a Regular Domestic Enquiry is not an empty formality. It is one of the essential conditions which give proper legality. (6) The “Domestic Enquiry” must be conducted fairly and properly in consonance with the principles of natural justice.” 6. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice vide APSRTC No.P2/118(01)/2023/MDWD, dated 17.01.2025 (Ex.P.13) calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation indicating the proposed punishment of removal from service. The petitioner acknowledged the same on 20.01.2025 as per the postal track report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by the proceedings impugned by imposing a major penalty i.e. removed the petitioner from service with immediate effect. 7. The matter was listed on 10.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the interim order granted in W.P.No.13806 of 2024, though expired on 02.01.2025, extended on 27.01.2025 for three more months. On 28.01.2025 the order impugned was passed. In the said circumstances, this Court directed the learned 3rd respondent shall appear before this Court along with the entire record. The 3rd respondent appeared before this Court and produced the record. 8. Despite extending the interim order on 27.01.2025 in the presence of the learned standing counsels, passing the impugned order in the writ petition, prima facie, is contemptuous. 4 9. Learned standing counsel would submit that the order of extension of interim order was not communicated to the 3rd respondent and hence, the 3rd respondent has no knowledge about the order passed by this Court. 10. The order was passed in the open court extending the interim order and hence, the contention of the learned standing counsel that the 3rd respondent is not aware of the order, is only a lame excuse that cannot be countenanced. However, since the entire record is placed before this Court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition on merits. 11. As discussed supra, the petitioner submitted an explanation to the notice dated 07.01.1025 and pointed out irregularities regarding the conducting of domestic inquiry. However, without adverting to the reply submitted by the petitioner, a show-cause notice Ex.P.13 was issued to the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to submit an explanation, the authority, in a hush-hush, imposed a major penalty i.e. removing the petitioner from service. 12. In the proceedings whereby the petitioner was removed from service, the 3rd respondent relied upon a preliminary inquiry conducted by one Smt.Ujwala Rani and mediators’ report and findings. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the officer, who conducted a preliminary inquiry in the domestic enquiry. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the mediators’ report, part of criminal proceedings, and the trial in the criminal case is yet to be commenced, was relied upon. The mediators were not examined in the departmental enquiry. By relying upon the mediators’ report, imposing a major penalty i.e., removing the petitioner from service, in the opinion of this Court, is impermissible and arbitrary. 14. While imposing the punishment, the learned authority should have at least discussed the objections dated 16.01.2025 of the petitioner to the notice 5 dated 07.01.2025, which goes to the root of the matter. Strangely, nothing was discussed in the proceedings impugned. The disciplinary authority, in the opinion of this court, has given a go-bye to the basic tenets of service jurisprudence. 15. Thus, the proceedings impugned are not only illegal and arbitrary but also suffer from violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings impugned vide APSRTC No.P2/118(01)/2023-MDWD, dated 28.01.2025 (Ex.P.16) issued by the 3rd respondent. The disciplinary authority shall await the judgement in the criminal case and then proceed with the domestic inquiry, since the disciplinary authority, has given a go-bye to the basic tenets of service jurisprudence and also the A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules 1996. 17. Considering the submissions made by learned standing counsel that the copy of the order dated 27.01.2025 extending the interim order was not communicated to the 3rd respondent, this court restrained from initiating suo moto contempt against the 3rd respondent. The original record produced before this court returned to the learned standing counsel. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.02.2025 KA 6 148 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3436/2025 Date: 24.02.2025 KA 7 148 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3436/2025 Date: 24.02.2025 KA