APHC010091992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 5521/2026 Between: 1. D JOGESWARA REDDY, S/O D. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC BLOCK PROJECT COORDINATOR (BPC), MUDDANUR ICDS PROJECT, R/O. 1-39, LAVANUR VILLAGE, KONDAPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WD AND CW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516001. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, A.P., GUNTUR-52.2006. 4. THE DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT OFFICER, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516001. ...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 to (a) issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Proceedings in Progs.No.5230/A1/2025 dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same (b) direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits (c) declare that the findings recorded in the impugned order declaring the experience certificate as fake are unsustainable and without authority of law (d) pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 suspend the operation of the impugned Proceedings in Progs.No.5230/A1/2025 dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Respondent No.4 and direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue in service with all benefits and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to (a) issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Proceedings in Progs.No.5230/A1/2025 dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same (b) direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits (c) declare that the findings recorded in the impugned order declaring the experience certificate as fake are unsustainable and without authority of law (d) pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr.Vijayakumara C.P.V. vs. Central University of Kerala and Others1 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed: “5. From the perusal of the termination order dated 30-11-2017 issued by the Vice-Chancellor, it is evident that the same was issued in the backdrop of the Internal Complaints Committee Report. The opening part of the order itself mentions that on scrutiny of report by the Internal Complaints Committee, other documents and academic performance, the Executive Council in its meeting held on 30-11-2017, decided to take the decision to terminate the services of the appellant forthwith. 1 (2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 426 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 91 6. The appellant had assailed the impugned termination order dated 30- 11-2017 being ex facie stigmatic. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (for short "the High Court") vide judgment and order dated 30-1-2018 in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala, however, construed the same as one of termination simpliciter. The Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 20-2-2018 in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala has affirmed that view taken by the learned Single Judge and rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant. 8. It is well-established position that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might be contained in "any document referred to in the termination order". Such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as ex facie stigmatic order of termination. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Indra Pal Gupta v. Model Inter College had occasion to deal with somewhat similar situation. In that case, the order of termination referred to the decision of the Managing Committee and subsequent approval by the competent authority as the basis for termination. The resolution of the Managing Committee in turn referred to a report of the Manager which indicated serious issues and that was made the basis for the decision by the Committee to terminate probation of the employee concerned. 10. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, the Court observed thus: (SCC p. 528, para 21) "21. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full-scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld." 11. In the present case, all the three elements are attracted, as a result of which it must follow that the stated order is ex facie stigmatic and punitive. Such an order could be issued only after subjecting the Incumbent to a regular inquiry as per the service rules. As a matter of fact, the Internal Complaints Committee had recommended to proceed against the appellant appropriately but the Executive Council proceeded under the mistaken belief that in terms of Clause 7 of the contract, it was open to the Executive Council to terminate the services of the appellant without a formal regular inquiry as per the service rules. Indisputably, in the present case, the Internal Complaints Committee was constituted in reference to the complaints received from the girl students about the alleged misconduct committed by the appellant, which allegations were duly inquired into in a formal inquiry after giving opportunity to the appellant and culminated with the report recording finding against the appellant with recommendation to proceed against him.” 4. In light of the observations made in the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and upon perusal of the record as well as consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities, on the basis of certain allegations and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, conducted an enquiry behind his back and straightaway terminated his services. 5. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, even in the case of a contractual employee, if the order of termination is stigmatic in nature, it would adversely affect his future employment prospects. Therefore, although a detailed enquiry under Section 20 of the C.C.A. Rules may not be mandatory in the case of a contractual appointment, the principles of natural justice must necessarily be complied with before effecting termination. 6. Accordingly, in the present case, if any enquiry has been conducted, a copy of the same shall be furnished to the petitioner along with a notice, and after affording him an opportunity to submit his explanation, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. Considering the same, the said impugned proceedings dated 09.02.2026 are set aside and the matter has been remanded back to respondent No.4 i.e., The District Women and Child Welfare and Empowerment Officer, Y.S.R. Kadapa District and take appropriate action based on the above observations. 8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 26.02.2026 M K K 115 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.5521 of 2026 Dated: 26.02.2026 M K K