Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3577/2026 of KALVA NARENDRA PRASAD Vs AP SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LTD on 8 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3577 of Between: 1. KALVA NARENDRA PRASAD, S/O KALVA BALANAGASUBBARAYUDU, AGE 36 YEARS, R/O 1 VILLAGE,KRISHNAGIRI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH
APHC010041802026
IN TH
MONDA
TWO
THE HON
WR
Between:
1. KALVA
NAR
BALANAGASUBBA
VILLAGE,KRISHNA
PRADESH - 518222
1. AP SOUTHERN P
REP. BY ITS CHA
517503.
2. THE CHIEF GENE
517501.
3. THE
SUPERINTE
NANDYAL - 518501
4. THE EXECUTIVE
518222.
5. M/S PVKR PROJEC
AT 3-1, NEHRU N
INDIA - 518222
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
AY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
RIT PETITION NO: 3577 of 2026
RENDRA
PRASAD,
S/O
ARAYUDU, AGE 36 YEARS, R/O 1-
AGIRI MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST
2.
AND
POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY
AIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ERAL MANAGER HRD, APSPDCL
ENDING
ENGINEER,
OPERATIO
1.
ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISIO
CTS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PART
NAGAR DHONE , DHONE, ANDHR
...RES
DESH
[3208]
H
O
KALVA
-42, CHITYALA
RICT,ANDHRA
...PETITIONER
Y OF AP LTD,
TIRUPATI -
L, TIRUPATI -
ON
CIRCLE,
ON, DHONE -
TNER, OFFICE
RA PRADESH,
SPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.DHEERA KANISHKA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 3577 OF 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in issuing the termination proceedings dated 13.08.2025, at the behest, instance and instructions of the official respondents APSPDCL, without issuing any show cause notice, without framing charges, without conducting any enquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the said termination proceedings, and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and all attendant and consequential benefits, including back wages…”
2. Heard Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the Respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner is a contract employee engaged as Shift Operator at Sankalapauram Sub- Station under the control of Respondent No.5/ contractor. During the year 2024-25, the Respondents initiated enquiry on certain allegations against the staff and officers of APSPDCL, wherein the Petitioner is arrayed as witness as No.12, but no charge was framed and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner. The enquiry report does not find any specific finding holding the Petitioner guilty of misconduct. While so, the Respondents issued directions to terminate his services and issued termination proceedings dated 13.08.2025 without issuing show cause notice, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.
4. During hearing learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents fairly submits that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the official Respondents and the Petitioner. He was engaged by the contractor, Respondent No.5. In similar issue already decided by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 467 of 2023, dated 14.07.2023. In the light of said decision, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is therefore at liberty to take recourse to such other remedy as may be open under law and as may be advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 09.02.2026 KK