WP/25666/2024 of GANDIREDDI GANAPATHI Vs THE STATE OF AP on 17 August 2026

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or direction or order in the nature of MANDAMUS to adjudge and declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing proceedings vide R.C.No. B1/2426/2017 dated 30.07.2017 terminating the services of the Petitioner without issuing any show cause notice as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust besides being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the order dated 30.07.2017 and direct the 3rd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequent benefits …”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services II and Sri G.Rawns Solomon, learned counsel representing Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent - Temple.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Licensed Surveyor on contract basis in the 3rd respondent-Temple. While so, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 30.07.2017, terminated the services of the petitioner without issuing any notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged on a contractual basis and the allegations made against him are stigmatic in nature, which are likely to adversely affect his future employment prospects. Therefore, before taking any adverse action against the petitioner, the respondents ought to have issued a notice and P a g e | 4

afforded him an opportunity to defend himself, in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

5. On the other hand, respondents have filed counter stating that the petitioner was engaged on contractual/need basis depending upon requirement of the respondent – Temple, without any assurance of permanent employment or continuation in service. Therefore, no prior notice is required before passing termination order, as such, he is not entitled to any relief sought in the writ petition.

6. Considered the submissions made on either side.

A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 30.07.2017 reveals that the petitioner was removed from service on the basis of certain allegations, which are stigmatic in nature. A further perusal of the record discloses that no notice was issued to the petitioner, nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him before passing the impugned order. The respondents, without following due process, straightway issued the proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner.

Once stigmatic allegations were levelled against the petitioner, the respondents ought to have issued a show-cause notice, called for his explanation, and considered the same before taking any adverse action against him. Admittedly, no such procedure was followed by the respondents, and the services of the petitioner were straightaway terminated, in violation of the principles of natural justice. In such P a g e | 5

circumstances, the impugned proceedings dated 30.07.2017 cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceedings dated 30.07.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation, and thereafter consider the explanation submitted by him and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, with regard to the re-engagement of the petitioner, the same will be subject to the outcome of the orders to be passed by the respondent authorities after following the above said procedure.

8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________

JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 18.08.2026

Dvs

P a g e | 6

188

W.P.No.25666 of 2024 Dt: 18.08.2026 Dvs