Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010336992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18608/2026 Between: T Radhakrishna ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESH KOSARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.18608 of 2026 O R D E R: The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.5 in terminating the services of the Petitioner vide Proceedings No.20 of 2026, dated 10.02.2026, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was working as Outsourcing Watchman in the Respondent Agricultural Marketing Department, pursuant to the Proceedings issued by the Person-in-Charge dated 12.09.2009 and has been continuing ever since. While so, the Respondent No.2 directed the Respondent No.4 to take action for terminating the services of the Petitioner on the basis of the report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) Tirupati, alleging that an amount of Rs.3,68,000/- was received by the Petitioner from Sri P.P. Srinivasan, Commission Agent, on behalf of M/s Harsh Fresh Dairy Products Private Limited, now M/s Bhole Baba Organic Milk Private Limited. 3. Pursuant thereto, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 03.02.2026 to submit his explanation on the allegations made against him. In response thereto, the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.02.2026 denying the allegations. Inspite of the same, the impugned Order came to be passed terminating the services of the Petitioner without conducting any enquiry. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3 services of the Petitioner were terminated in terms of the direction of respondent no. 2, and the issuance of the show-cause notice for explanation was only a camouflage to make a show of balance of principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that the Petitioner would submit a representation afresh to Respondent No. 3, and it would suffice if the impugned order with regard to penalty is re-examined, as none of the contentions of the Petitioner were taken into consideration. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that in the event the Petitioner submits a fresh representation, the same would be examined by the Respondent No.3 with open mind and appropriate decision will be communicated to the Petitioner. 6. As the Petitioner limits his relief for re-consideration of the impugned order of penalty by taking into consideration his explanation, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions i) The Petitioner shall submit a fresh representation to the Respondent No.3 explaining his defence to the allegations made against the Petitioner in detail within a period of four weeks from today. ii) On receipt of the same, the Respondent No.3 shall re- examine the defence urged by the Petitioner vis a vis the allegations, and pass appropriate Orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. 4 iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 10.07.2026 eha Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.18608 of 2026 Dated: 10.07.2026 eha