Date of pronouncement : 23-06-2026 Date of uploading : APHC010297332026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 16381/2026 Between: Banana Bhaskara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAMIDI VAIBHAV RAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.16381 of 2026 O R DE R: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents, particularly the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in not permitting the Petitioner to discharge his duties as Shift Operator at 33/11 KC Sub Station, Boddam Sub Station, Rajam Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a Shift Operator at the 33/11 KV Substation, Boddam Sub Station, Rajam Mandal, through an outsourcing agency, i.e., the Respondent No.6. The Petitioner had been discharging his duties to the best of his ability without any complaint from any of the Respondents. While so, the Respondent No.5 has been obstructing the discharge of duties of the Petitioner from April 2026 on the recommendations of the Chief Vigilance Officer. It is stated that in view of the restraint on the discharge of duties, the salary of the Petitioner from April has been denied by the Respondent No.6. 3. It is further submitted that in the month of November 2024, a Vigilance Enquiry was initiated against the Respondent No.5 and the Petitioner on a complaint given by a farmer alleging that the Respondent No.5 and the Petitioner collected a bribe amount for releasing the service connection. It is further stated that in the course of the enquiry, the Vigilance Inspector has recorded the statement of the Petitioner, and that the said allegations were principally against the Respondent No.5. Though no enquiry report was given, as a consequence, the Petitioner is being denied the right to discharge the 3 duties. A representation was also given by the Petitioner on 06.06.2026 to that effect. 4. Learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that the Respondent No.6 had terminated the Petitioner from service and on that account, the Petitioner is being denied to discharge of duties. He further submits that the Petitioner is an outsourcing Shift Operator and that the issue with regard to the employment cannot be maintained before this Court relying on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.467 of 2023, dated 14.07.2023. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.6 had not terminated the Petitioner and he is very much available on the rolls of the Respondent No.6 and that the reason given by the Respondent Authorities is factually incorrect. 6. The principal reason for obstructing the discharge of duties by the Respondent Authorities is alleged removal of the Petitioner from the rolls of the agency i.e., the Respondent No.6. 7. In the light of the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner need not restrain from service in the event the Petitioner is on the rolls of the Respondent No.6. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of both parties with the following directions. i) The Respondents Authorities are directed not to restrain the Petitioner from service in the event the Petitioner is on the rolls of the Respondent No.6. 4 ii) There shall be no order to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 23.06.2026 Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable eha 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.16381 of 2026 Dated: 23.06.2026 eha