IV , IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATJ^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3903 OF 2025 Between: Kukati Ratna Bhushanam, S/o Yobu, Age:42 years, Occ. Field Assistant (Removed) R/o D.No.2-17, Mukkapadu Gram Panchayath, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The District Collector-cum-Chairman District, Water Management Agency, Krishna Dist., at Machilipatnam. 3. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency Machilipatnam Town, Krishna Dist. 4. The Programme Officer, Mandal Parashid Development Officer MGNREGS, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist. ...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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the non-speaking order passed by the 3 proceedings in R.C.No.38/A2/2024 dt. 10-01-2025 wherein rd respondent vide permanently removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant working at Mukkapadu Gram Panchayat, Unguturu Mandal of Krishna Dist. there is a direction from this Hon'ble court vide order dt.31-12-2024 i despite in W.P.No.30397/2024 to pass a speaking order and violative of principles of natural justice and order dt. 10-01-2025 by declaring reinstatement as Filed Assistant with as highly illegal, arbitrary consequently set aside the that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits.^ jA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i CPC praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court proceedings issued by the 3 clt.10-01-2025 with may be respondent vide to the service as Filed Assistant pleased to Suspended the R.C.NO.38/A2/2024 a further direction respondents to reinstate the petitioner into pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. M. M. SRINIVASA RAO - Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES IV " Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI M.S.R.CHANDRA MURTHX SC FOR MGNREGS Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI G. SRINIVASULU REDDY, SC FOR The Court made the following: ORDERZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT V APHC010067402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3903/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER Kukati Ratna Bhushanam AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M M M SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri M M M Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M S R Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 & 3, Sri G.Srinivasulu Reddy, learned standing counsel for 3^'^ respondent and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appeared for 1 respondent. St Impugning the proceedings vide R.C.No.38/A2/2024, dated 10.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) issued by the 3'^^ respondent terminating the petitioner from services of Field Assistant, Mukkapadu gram Panchayat, Ungutur Mandal permanently, the above writ petition is filed. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that notice dated 19.10.2024 was issued to the petitioner and the submitted a written defence/explanation dated 21.10.2024. a show-cause petitioner in turn, Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 15.11.2024 and the petitioner submitted an explanation on 25.11.2024. A notice dated 26.12.2024 was issued by fixing the date of the personal hearing on 03.01.2025 and the petitioner attended the inquiry and submitted an explanation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without considering the objections and assigning the reasons, the order impugned.was passed by the 3'" respondent. Learned counsel would also submit that since no reasons were assigned, the order impugned is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned standing counsel would contend that the 3'"^ respondent followed the procedure under Rule 13(a) of Field Assistants Human Policy, 2013 and passed the order impugned. Learned would also submit that against the order impugned, an appeal would lie. Without filing an appeal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Consideration: Resource standing counsel 6. On perusal of Ex.P.1 proceedings impugned in the writ petition, it would indicate, the issuance of show-cause notice; explanation of the petitioner; issuance of suspension proceedings; explanation of the petitioner; hearing notice and explanation. The allegations made against the petitioner and the contents of the explanation submitted by the petitioner 3^^ respondent, without assigning any reasons, by comparing the explanation with the inquiry report, concluded that the allegations against the were personal were extracted. petitioner proven and thereby cancelled the contract permanently. f.. 3 It is a settled principle of law that the administrative authority or quasi judicial authority must assign reasons while passing orders. Reasons are the heart and soul of every order passed by administrative authority or quasi judicial authority. In the absence of reason, the order passed by an authority becomes vulnerable. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad JaP the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 10. In the case at hand, as stated supra, the authority, without assigning passed the order impugned. Thus the order impugned is bereft of reasons. On that ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be set aside. 11. reasons The contention of learned standing counsel that the petitioner did not avail alternative remedy, in the facts of the case, since the order impugned suffers from bereft of reasons, falls to the ground. 12. Given the expressions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to supra, the order suffers from bereft of reasons, the order impugned is set 13. since aside. ("2010) 9 see 496 '{2010) 4 see 785 >(2008) 15 see 711 4 Accordingly, the proceedings impugned vide R.C.No.38/A2/2024, dated 10.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) issued by the respondent is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the 3'^ respondent. The 3'"’ respondent shall consider the explanation objectively and pass a reasoned order, if by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This 14. necessary, exercise shall be completed within three (3) weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The District Collector-cum-Chairman District, Water Management Agency, Krishna Dist., at Machilipatnam. 3. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency Machilipatnam Town, Krishna Dist. 4. The Programme Officer, Mandal Parashid Development Officer MGNREGS, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna Dist. 5. One CC to Sri M. M. M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] / 6. One CC to Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, SC for MGNREGS[OPU^ 7. One CC to Sri G. Srinivasulu Reddy, SC for ZPP, MPP & Gram Panchayat[OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Services-lV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 ORDER OV= AND^ WP.No.3903 of 2025 0 l MAR 2025 . Current Section ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS