APHC010570802022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 34699/2022 Between: 1. G GOVARDHANA, S/O G. PARTHA SARATHY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MATHS) (UNDER ORDERS OF REMOVAL) GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, YEMMIGANUR (V) AND (M), KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT (OLD KRISHNA DISTRICT) 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 issue an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing proceedings Rc. No. 2924/A3/ 2016 dt.07-10-2022, wherein removed the petitioner from service is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as School Assistant (Maths) with all consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 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 to suspend the operation of impugned proceedings vide Rc No. 2924/A3/2016 dt.07-10-2022 of the 3rd respondent by reinstating the petitioner into service, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 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 to vacate the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 27.10.2022 in WP.No.34699 of 2022 in the interest of justice and may be pleased to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to extend the interim order granted in W.P.No.34699 of 2022 dt.27-10-2022 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.34699 OF 2022 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.2924/A3/2016 dt.07-10-2022, wherein removed the petitioner from service is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as School Assistant (Maths) with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 13.12.1997. Later, he was promoted as School Assistant (Maths) on 14.02.2009. The petitioner herein submitted an application on 01.07.2011 for Extraordinary Leave and no orders have been passed on the said application. While so, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 19.12.2011. The said resignation was neither accepted nor rejected. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 18.06.2017. As seen from the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer was not recommended for any punishment. Later, second enquiry was conducted on 01.09.2020 and in the second enquiry, it was recommended to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement into service as School Assistant on humanitarian grounds. 3. Surprisingly, the impugned proceedings were issued on 07.10.2022 by imposing the penalty of removal from service under Rule 9 (ix) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) as amended in G.O.Ms.No.127, General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 15.09.2017 read with Rule 18 and 18A of the Rules. 4. Challenging the said proceedings dated 07.10.2022, the present Writ Petition has been filed on the ground that the respondents have removed the petitioner from the service without conducting any enquiry. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to Rule 20 of the Rules, detailed procedure is contemplated to impose punishment. Even though two enquiries were conducted on 18.06.2017 and 01.09.2020, those enquiries were not conducted as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules. The Commissioner is also recommended for reinstatement of the petitioner, through proceedings dated 04.09.2018 in Rc.No.2924/A3/2016. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that termination without an enquiry would amounts to stigmatic termination. It is not only applicable to the permanent Government employees, it is also equally applies to the temporary and outsourcing employees and placed reliance on two Divisional Bench judgments, which are referred hereunder: 1) State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department v. and others v. K. Madhu Phani and another1. 1 2018(1) ALT 125 (D.B.) 5 2) Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director and another v. B. Nandeswar Rao2. 8. The Division Bench in both the judgments held that conducting of departmental enquiry is essential and termination without conducting enquiry is a stigmatic termination. 9. As the respondents have not conducted the enquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid Rules, the impugned proceedings dated 07.10.2022 are hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry by following the procedure contemplated under the aforesaid Rules. However, the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement till conclusion of the enquiry. The respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. 10. With the above observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 08.09.2026 KBN 2 2014(4) ALT 211 (D.B.) 6 50 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.34699 of 2022 Date: 08.09.2026 KBN