Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25693 (AP)

Chunduru Ramesh Babu v. The Government of A.P, Rep by its Principal Secretary

WP/18355/2014 · 2026-03-30

Harinath N

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 HN, J W.P.No.18355_2014 APHC010583862014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18355/2014 Between: 1. CHUNDURU RAMESH BABU,, S/O DEVAPALANA, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O KURNUTHALA POST, VATTICHERUKURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522017 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HUDA HERMITAGE OFFICE COMPLEX (NREGS), HILLFORTROAD, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SERVICES, O/O THE COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HUDA HERMITAGE OFFICE COMPLEX (NREGS), HILLFORTROAD, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ( NREGS), GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. ...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 toIssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of respondents in removing 2 HN, J W.P.No.18355_2014 the petitioner from services vide R.c.No. 272/Mgr-2012 dt. 22-04-2013 on the file of 4th respondent herein which are confirmed in appeal vide Proceedings,No.3522/CRD/SPM(DM)/195/2013 dt.20-06-2013 on the file of 3rd respondent herein as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 23018 OF 2014 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 suspend the impugned proceedings vide R.c.No. 272/Mgr-2012 dt. 22-04- 2013 on the file of 4th respondent which are confirmed in appeal vide Proceedings,No.3522/CRD/SPM(DM)/195/2013 dt.20-06-2013 on the file of 3rd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV (AP) 3 HN, J W.P.No.18355_2014 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2013 passed by the respondent No.4, which were confirmed in appeal by the respondent No.3, vide the proceedings dated 20.06.2013. The petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant and the petitioner was charged with certain irregularities, which allegedly resulted in appropriation of an amount of Rs.82,886/-. It is submitted that the enquiry was superficially conducted, and respondent No.4 passed the impugned proceedings without granting a proper opportunity to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the proposed recovery is not based on any appropriate enquiry. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Technical Assistant on 25.08.2007. A social audit was conducted with regard to the allegations of misappropriation, and a report was submitted on 18.09.2012. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.11.2012. Respondent No.4 conducted an enquiry and held that the petitioner was responsible for misappropriation of Rs.82,886/-. Respondent No.3 considered the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order passed by respondent No.4. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 considered the evidence on record and that the petitioner failed to submit any additional on new grounds for the appellate authority to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority. The Petitioner, apart from challenging the impugned proceedings, has not placed 4 HN, J W.P.No.18355_2014 any material on record to show that he submitted his response or explanation to the show cause notice. 3. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:31.03.2026 NKA 5 HN, J W.P.No.18355_2014 296 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 18355 of 2014 Date: 31.03.2026 NKA