APHC010300162023 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: 15771/2023 Between: 1. INDLA SUMAN, S/O.KANTHA RAO, AGED 34 YRS, OCC. FIELD ASSISTANT, GODIGANUR GRAMPANCHAYAT, CHAGALAMARRI MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PRRD DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CHARITASRI HOSPITAL, SURYARAOPETA, VIJAYAWADA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, MGNREGS, NANDYALA DISTRICT. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DWMA, NANDYALA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MGNREGS, CHAGALAMARRI MANDAL, NANDYALA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, a Writ of Certiorari, calling for all connected records including the order of the Respondent No.4 that terminated the petitioner vide Proceedings no.76/Memos/HRM/2017 dated 08.09.2022, bearing and set aside the same as unjust, illegal, arbitrary, improper, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, without jurisdiction and contrary to Law and further direct the Respondent No. 4 to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondent No.4 in terminating the services of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 08.09.2022. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings dated 08.09.2022 were issued by respondent No.4 without issuing any prior notice and without conducting any enquiry, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 6.02 of the SRDS Rules. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 5. Considering the same, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities have not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as required under Rule 6.02 of the SRDS Rules. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 08.09.2022 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned authority to issue a fresh notice, provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the rules, and pass appropriate orders within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also cooperate with the respondent authorities in the said process. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 26.02.2026 klk 152 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 15771/2023 26.02.2026 klk