1 BM,J W.P.No. 1979 of2023 Dated 22.09.2026 APHC010039542023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 1979 OF 2023 Between: 1. G. GEETAMMA, W/O MAHENDRA NAIK, AGE- 27, OCCU- RETRENCHED GOVT. SERVANT, R/O, 16-81, BUTTIGARI PALLE, GALIVEEDU MANDAL 86 POST, RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT - 516 267. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, OLD MIRCHI YARD, NALLAPADU ROAD, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, RAYASCHOTI, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. 6. MANDAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, CHINNAMANDEM MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 BM,J W.P.No. 1979 of2023 Dated 22.09.2026 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T VIJAY HANUMAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 BM,J W.P.No. 1979 of2023 Dated 22.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 1979 OF 2023 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings vide Roc.No.ASO/C1/2022, dated 02.06.2022 of the 4th respondent in terminating the petitioner from service. 2. Petitioner was appointed on 04.06.2015 as Multi Purpose Extension Officer at Vandadi Village of Chinnamandem Mandal, Annamaiah District. Since the irregularities were alleged against the Petitioner in disbursing the Crop Insurance, proceedings for termination were issued on a purported enquiry conducted by the Assistant of Director (Soil Conservation), Royachoti. The said order was challenged on the ground that the termination orders were not issued by the appointing authority and is against principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondents have filed their counter stating that petitioner is a Contract Worker, basing on the allegation against the petitioner and some others, the Assistant Director for agriculture (Soil Conservation), Royachoti, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer and an enquiry has been conducted by the Assistant Director for Agriculture on 26.02.2022 in the said village and also inspected the fields, Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.06.2022 recording 4 BM,J W.P.No. 1979 of2023 Dated 22.09.2026 findings against the petitioner and others regarding misappropriation of funds pertaining to 12 farmers. There upon, based on the enquiry, the District Collector instructed to terminate the contract services of the petitioner. Accordingly, the District Agricultural Officer issued impugned proceedings. 4. On perusal of the Writ Affidavit and Counter, it is clear that though the petitioner is a contract employee, though no regular enquiry is provided for discharge of the contract employees, if their services are not found satisfactory. However, once allegations are made against an employee, the authorities have to conduct an enquiry, otherwise, the same turns out a stigmatic termination, which will effect on their future employment. 5. In the instant case, allegations are made against the petitioner regarding misappropriation of funds and the authorities have conducted enquiry where the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. Thus, the enquiry was conducted behind back the petitioner. As such, the proceedings cannot be sustained as they are in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Without going into the other contentions of the petitioner, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity and the order impugned in the writ petition is making serious allegations regarding misappropriation of the funds, 5 BM,J W.P.No. 1979 of2023 Dated 22.09.2026 which are ultimately stigmatic allegations. As such, petitioner is entitled for adherence of principles of natural justice before taking such an action. 7. Considering the same, the order impugned in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. As seen from the record, there are certain allegations against the petitioner for misappropriation of funds. Merely it was found that non-compliance of principles of natural justice and mere setting aside the order does not automatically entitled the petitioner to be reinstatement into service. However, reinstatement will be subject to the outcome of the enquiry. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in (2022) 15 SCC OnLine SC 254 in paragraphs No.12 to 14 held that- “12. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, which was also pressed into service on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under: (SCC p.536) “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to 6 BM,J W.P.No. 1979 of2023 Dated 22.09.2026 conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30]).” 13. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that when the aforesaid submission and the aforesaid decision was pressed into service, the High Court has not considered the same on the ground that the other officers involved in respect of the same incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken against them. Applying the law laid down in the case of A. Masilamani (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as well as the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court in not allowing further proceedings from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet, is unsustainable. 14. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the High Court quashing and setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by applying the Doctrine of Equality is hereby quashed and set aside. However, as the enquiry is found to be vitiated and is found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as it is alleged that the relevant documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer, we remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet and to proceed further with the enquiry after furnishing all the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet and after following due principles of natural justice. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today”. The Hon’ble Apex court, following the judgment reported in reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530, held that where the illegality is found and where the proceedings are vitiated due to non-adherence of the rules and principles of natural justice, the proceedings shall be recommenced from there and mere quashing of proceedings does not automatically entitle the petitioner of reinstatement. The 7 BM,J W.P.No. 1979 of2023 Dated 22.09.2026 disciplinary authority can proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of principles of nature justice. 11. In the instant case, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed further with enquiry, after issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Roc.No.ASO/C1/2022, dated 02.06.2022 and the matter is remitted back to the respondents to conduct fresh enquiry, however the reinstatement of the petitioner will be subject to the outcome of the enquiry. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Dated 22.09.2026 KS Whether the order is : Speaking: Yes Reasoned : Yes Reportable: No Non-Reportable: Yes 8 BM,J W.P.No. 1979 of2023 Dated 22.09.2026 56 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 1979 OF 2023 Dated:22.09.2026. KS