IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ( PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4321 OF 2025 O z Between: Bodaballa Appalanaidu, S/o Swami Naidu, Aged 48 yrs, Occ; Field Assistant (MGNREGS presently under Termination), Pedapadam Panchayat, R/o 1-152, Baguvalasa (V), Salur Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat buildings. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. The Commissioner, Village Development Department, Parvathipuram Manyam District. The Project Director, D W M A Parvathipuram Manyam District at Parvathipuram. The Additional District Co-ordinator, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Parvathipuram Manyam District, Andhra Pradesh. The District Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Salur Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District. 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of petitioner vide proceedings Rc. No 531/2024/HRMS/Manyam dated 22.1.2025 wherein communicated to the petitioner on 29.1.2025 without conducting any enquiry, without considering his detailed explanation dated 9.9.2024, without conducting of any personal hearing and without taking note of pendency of his Appeal dated 19.11.2024 made before 5*'^ respondent against putting the petitioner under temporary out of Contract employment of Field Assistant vide orders passed by the 4**^ respondent dated 4.11.2024 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary , contravening the procedure laid under Field Assistants Fluman Resource policy, contrary to the Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, Violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and reinstate the petitioner into the service by granting back wages and all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 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 operation of the proceedings Rc. No 531/2024/HRMS/Manyam dated 22.1.2025 wherein communicated to the petitioner on 29.1.2025 issued by the 3'^'^ Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI U D JAI BHIMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI M.S.R.CHANDRA MURTHY, SC FOR MGNREGS Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G. SRINIVASULA REDDY, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT The Court made the following: ORDER i r' APHC010083062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4321/2025 Between: Bodaballa Appalanaidu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.U D JAI BHIMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri U D Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for 1 respondent, Sri M S R Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 and Sri G.Srinivasula Reddy, learned standing counsel for 6^'^ respondent. St 2. Impugning the proceedings vide Rc.No.531/2024/HRMS/Manyam, dated 22.01.2025 issued by the 3^^ respondent terminating the contract of the petitioner permanently, the above writ petition is filed. f 2 3. A show-cause notice vide Rc.No.5312024/HRMS, dated 31.08.2024 (Ex.P.3) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 09.09.2024 (Ex.P.4). Thereafter, by proceedings vide Rc.No.531/2024/HRMS/Manyam, dated -11-2024, the petitioner was placed under suspension (temporarily out of contract). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without conducting a personal hearing, as mandated under Clause-13 of Field Assistant Human Resource Policy, 2013 (for short “FAHRP, 2013”), the order impugned was passed and hence, the order is liable to be set aside. Sri M.S.R.Chandramurthy, learned Standing counsel would submit that against the order impugned passed by the 3"^^ respondent, an appeal would lie to the 5''^ respondent. Without availing of appeal remedy, the petitioner approached this Court and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Consideration: 6. A perusal of Ex.P.1, the references referred would indicate issuance of show-cause notice, explanation and suspension pending inquiry. Clause-13 of the FAHRP, 2013 mandates personal hearing opportunities for the delinquent. In the case at hand, references in the suspension order dated 22.01.2025 do not indicate providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner. Apart from the said lacuna, the order does not indicate consideration of the explanation of the petitioner dated 09.09.2024 (Ex.P.4). Even no reasons were also assigned. 7. 8. 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. —> ('2010) 9 see 496 3 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 Jai^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 10. As discussed supra, the order impugned (Ex.P.1) suffers from a violation of principles of natural justice, failure to follow clause-13 of FAHRP- 2013 and also bereft of reasons. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings impugned vide Rc.No.531/2024/HRMS/Manyam, dated 22.01.2025 (Ex.PI) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the 3'"'^ respondent. The learned 3 respondent shall conduct the inquiry afresh by providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner and shall pass a reasoned order within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order strictly as per FAHRP, 2013. 12. rd 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ^(2010) 4 see 785 =*(2008) 15 see 711 Aeo. N-nagamima ASSISTANTREGI SECno.N OFFICER AR //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat buildings. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner, Village Development department, Parvathipuram Manyam District. 3. The Project Director, D W M A Parvathipuram Manyam District at Parvathipuram. 4. The Additional District Co-ordinator, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Parvathipuram Manyam District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The District Collector, Parvathipuram Manyam District. 6. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Salur Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District. 7. One CC to Sri U. D. Jai Bhima Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, SC for MGNREGS[OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri G. Srinivasula Reddy, SC for ZPP, MPP & Gram Panchayat[OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Services-IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 11. Three CD Copies. ssb f HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 I 1 1 mar 2025 n Current Section . ^ ORDER WP.No.4321 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS