APHC010082102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4319/2025 Between: 1. SRI V. SUBBA RAO,, S/O. GANGAIAH, AGED- 48YEARS, OCCUPATION- PSYCHOLOGIST, DEIC R/O MARKAPURAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 5TH FLOOR, APIIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI. 3. THE MISSION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, 5TH FLOOR, APIIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR, AP 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADMN, O/O MD, NHM, APIIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. SRI V SRIKANTH ENQUIRY OFFICER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (ADMN.), O/O MD, NHM, APIIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. SMT A RAJESWARI DEVI, 2ND ANM, KOMMALAPADU SUB CENTRE, PHC SANTHAMAGULURU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one on the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent no.2 in issuing the Termination Proceeding, questioning the impunged termination order vide Proc.No.24880994/HMF04- 26022(33)/137/2024-NHM, Dt.07.02.2025 of the respondent no.2 based on a blind folded Enquiry Report dated 28.08.2024 submitted by the respondent no.4, and proposing to terminate the petitioner w.e.f.28.02.2025, despite lack of bare evidence is malicious, on unfounded allegations, irrational, complete non application of mind and a colorable exercise of power, arbitrary, illegal and in volation Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it is consequently prayed to set aside the Proc.No.24880994/HMF04-26022(33)/137/2024-NHM,Dt.07.02.2025 of the respondent no.2 and enable the petitioner to continue his services with the respondents and pass IA 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 may be pleased to suspend the impugned termination order vide Proc.No.24880994/HMF04- 26022(33)/137/2024-NHM, Dt.07.02.2025 of the respondent no.2 and to pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in W.P.No.4319 of 2025, Dated 18.02.2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V S KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. RAGHAVA YATHIRAJU The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. The Present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the Termination Proceeding, questioning the impugned termination order vide Proc.No.2480994/HMF04- 26022(33)/137/2024-NHM, dated 07.02.2025, of the respondent No.2 based on a blind folded Enquiry Report dated 28.08.2024 submitted by the respondent No.4, and proposing to terminate the petitioner w.e.f 28.02.2025, despite lack of bare evidence is malicious, on unfounded allegations, irrational, complete non-application of mind and a colorable exercise of power, arbitrary, illegal. 2. The observation for Court attracts that, in settled law, even against the termination of contract employees or out sourcing employees by simple termination, the courts would not normally interfere. The Courts have to see whether the termination is proper. 3. Officially, the petitioner was appointed as Psycologist, District Early Intervention Centre (DEIC), Markapuram, in the year 2021, and he has continued till the termination orders on 28.02.2025. 4. The facts of the case is while working as psychologist in the District, there were certain issues pertaining to the Minimum Time Scale in the District. The 6th respondent has collected the amount from identical persons and same was handed over to the petitioner herein for filing a writ petition before this Court on behalf of the 25 ANM’s. When the 6th respondent is not able to get proper answer from the petitioner, she made a complaint before the 2nd respondent/The Commissioner, stating that though they have paid Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner, but, they were not getting any proper reply. Based on the above said complaint, the respondents has appointed the 5th respondent as an enquiry officer. Based on the statements furnished by the 6th respondent and two other ANM’s, the 5th respondent submitted his report on 28.08.2024, the findings of the enquiry reports reads as follows: “A detailed enquiry was conducted on 22.08.2024 at DEIC Centre, GGH, Ongole. After verification of the written statements and evidences of the petitioners, it is informed that Smt A. Rajeswari Devi, 2nd ANM, Kommalapadu Sub centre, PHC Santhamaguluru had collected an amount of Rs.2,000/- each from 25 ANMs who were undergoing GNM Training at GGH, Ongole. Further, it is informed that, Smt A. Rajeswari Devi, 2nd ANM and transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 11.07.2022 through phonepe app to Sri V. Subbarao, presently working as Psychologist at DEIC Markapur, Prakasam district for implementation of Minimum Time Scale to them. In this regard, it is informed that Sri V Subbarao had also admitted that he had received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from Smt A. Rajeswari Devi, 2nd ANM for implementation of Minimum Time Scale to NHM employees by filing a case in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.” 5. Based on the above enquiry report the 2nd respondent terminated service of the petitioner on 07.02.2025 as if the petitioner had followed up the Court by misusing the public office. The service was terminated though the issue involved in this writ petition shows that the 6th respondent had collected the amounts from identical persons and for filing the writ petition before this Court as W.P.No. 40370 of 2022, and Sri Gundla Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel, has also given endorsed receipt of Rs. 50,000/- for filing above said writ petition. 6. But, surprisingly, on perusal of the enquiry report the enquiry officer has not conducted a proper enquiry, and it is brought to the notice by the petitioner with regard to filing of the writ petition and the enquiry report about the said aspect. 7. Though the 6th respondent has contended that she had collected the amount from the petitioner for filing the writ petition with regard to 25 ANMs, the writ petition before the Court, the said finding is also missed in their enquiry report. Upon perusal of the impugned order, there is no specific finding given by the 2nd respondent while terminating the services except relating to the report filed by the 5th respondent. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the contentions of the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent, this Court is of the opinion that the 6th respondent has not conducted a proper enquiry with regard to the issues involved in the present writ petition, as he has only taken statements from three ANMs and also from the petitioner, without giving findings with regard to the issues involved in the present case. Only based on the statements made by the 6th respondent and also admitted by the petitioner with regard to receipt of Rs.50,000/-, a report has been given stating that the allegations are true. On perusal of the said report, it cannot be termed as a proper enquiry, and the findings are without basis. Accordingly, the impugned order as well as the enquiry report are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent to order a fresh enquiry after following due process and after collecting the entire material with regard to the said allegations, and to pass appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the respondents fail to conduct a proper enquiry within the stipulated time, it is needless to say that the respondents shall continue the petitioner as directed on 07.02.2025. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 23.01.2026 RMD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 4319/2025 23.01.2026 RMD