WP/7838/2024 of G UMA MAHESWARA RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 5 April 2026

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Proceedings in Memo.No.AGCO1- MKTG/356/Vig.II/2023, dt.08.02.2024 issued by the 1st respondent and Proceedings No.AGC05-16021/53/2024, dt. 18.02.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent thereby surrendered petitioners service to the 7th Respondent Corporation and consequential proceedings in Roc.No.96/A/2023, dt. 22.02.2024 issued by the 5th respondent who requested the 7th respondent to terminate the petitioner’s services as Watchman working on outsourcing basis in Etcherla Agriculture Market Committee at Budumuru market yard in Laveru Mandal of Srikakulam District, without issuing any Charge Memo, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any Speaking Order as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dt. 08.02.2024, 18.02.2024 and 22.02.2024 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service for the said post….”

2. The petitioner was appointed as Watchman in the office of Agricultural Market Committee at Budumuru market yard in Srikakulam District on outsourcing basis in the year 2019. The petitioner’s services were engaged through the 7th respondent- Corporation and he has been peacefully discharging duties without any complaint from anybody.

3. While so, it was alleged that the then in-charge Secretary of Agricultural Market Committee at Etcherla has resorted to misappropriation of funds of Agricultural Market Committee and against the said Secretary, a Crime No.219 of 2023 dated 24.08.2023 was registered, in which the petitioner’s name was falsely implicated alleging that an amount of Rs.2,08,00,130/- was transferred from Etcherla Market Committee funds to the personal accounts of the accused.

4. In that context, though there are no allegations against the petitioner, the impugned Memo No.AGC01-MKTG/356/Vig.II/2023, dated 08.02.2024 was issued by respondent No.1 directing respondent No.2 to surrender the services of the petitioner alleging misappropriation of amounts. Consequent thereto, respondent No.5 issued the impugned proceedings vide ROC.No.96/A/2023, dated 22.02.2024 terminating the services of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Agricultural Market Committee appearing for respondent No.6 has made submissions based on the counter-affidavit, pointing out substantial misappropriations in the Agricultural Market Committee, Etcherla. It is further stated that the then Secretary of the Committee was placed under suspension, and also stated that the petitioner had withdrawn the amounts of Rs.8,15,678/- based on the instructions given by the then Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Etcherla and that the petitioner did not inform the higher authorities while withdrawing the said amounts.

6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.5 also filed counter-affidavit seeking to sustain the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an outsourcing employee and there is no allegation of any misappropriation of amounts by the petitioner. The only allegation raised against the petitioner is that he did not inform the higher authorities about withdrawal of the amounts, at the instance of the then Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Etcherla. He further submits that the impugned order was issued without conducting any enquiry and without compliance of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court has already granted relief in W.P.No.10905 of 2024 by order dated 13.10.2025, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.

9. Heard the respective counsels.

10. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in The State of A.P, rep. by its Principal Secretary v. K. Madhu Phani and another1 held that even the outsourcing employees are entitled to an enquiry to be conducted when their services are being terminated on stigmatic grounds. Paragraph No.4 thereof is extracted hereunder:

“In our opinion, even in case of an outsourced employee, he cannot be stigmatized without an enquiry and in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the elements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in making the interim order absolute”.

11. Therefore, as the impugned order of termination is stigmatic and has the bearing on the employment of the petitioner, the respondents are bound to conduct an enquiry in compliance with the 1 (2018) 1 ALT 125 (DB)

principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:

(i) The impugned order vide ROC.No.96/A/2023, dated 22.02.2024, issued by respondent No.5, terminating the services of the petitioner is set-aside;

(ii) The respondents are at liberty to take action against the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness:

(iii) No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 06.04.2026 Ivd

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.7838 of 2024

Dated: 06.04.2026

Ivd