Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3090/2026 of H. Dada Khalander, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3090/2026 Between: 1. H. DADA KHALANDER,, S/O. H. RAHAMATHULLAH, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC.
APHC010050012026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 3090/2026
Between:
1. H. DADA KHALANDER,, S/O. H. RAHAMATHULLAH, AGED 31 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYED, RESIDING AT 3- 31, KALAMMA STREET, D-HIREHAL VILLAGE, D- HIREHALMANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522238.
2. THE
DISTRICT
COLLECTOR,
ANANTAPURAMU,
ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. - 515001.
3. THE
SUPERINTENDENT
ENGINEER,
APSPDCL,
ANANTAPURAMU,
ANANTAPURAMU
DISTRICT.
-
515001.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, APSPDCL, RAYADURGAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.- 515865
5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OPERATION, APSPDCL,
DR,J
W.P.NO.3090 OF 2026
D-HIREHAL, D-HIREHAL MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU
DISTRICT. - 515872
6. MR BOYAZU, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT
MIDUTHURU VILLAGE, KHAJAPETMANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT. -516203
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring removal order dated Nil issued by the 6th respondent without instructions of the respondent Nos. 3
to 5 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also without following procedure and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service as shift operator in 33/11 KV
substation D-Hirehal, Anantapuramu District and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service as shift operator in 33/11 KV substation D-Hirehal, Anantapuramu District by suspending the removal order dated nil issued by the 6th respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SESHADRI GOALLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
DR,J
W.P.NO.3090 OF 2026
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
DR,J
W.P.NO.3090 OF 2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 3090 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring removal order dated Nil issued by the 6th respondent without instructions of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also without following procedure and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service as shift operator in 33/11 KV substation D-Hirehal, Anantapuramu District …”
2. Heard Sri Seshadri Gaalla, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I representing the Respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner is an outsourcing employee engaged as a Shift Operator in the 33/11 KV D-Hirehal Sub-Station under the control of Respondent No. 6/Contractor. Since the date of his appointment, he has been discharging his duties without any remarks or complaints from any quarter.
4. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner was served with a letter issued by the 6th Respondent/Contractor removing him
DR,J
W.P.NO.3090 OF 2026 from service, stating that, as per a complaint received from one Kalava Srinivasulu, Politburo Member of the Telugu Desam Party, it was alleged that he had participated in the election campaign of Mettu Govind Reddy on 20.03.2024. The 6th Respondent stated in the said letter that, on the ground of violation of the Model Code of Conduct by a government employee, he was removed from service with immediate effect. The Petitioner categorically denies having participated in any election campaign, as alleged by the 6th Respondent.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the Petitioner is working under Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and, as such, the 6th Respondent has no power to remove the petitioner from service without any instructions or specific orders from Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. No show-cause notice was issued prior to his removal from service. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 ought to have enquired into the matter after issuing notice and affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to submit his explanation. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Collector on 18.11.2024 and another complaint through “Spandana” on 19.11.2024; however, no action was taken nor was any enquiry conducted into the matter. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.
DR,J
W.P.NO.3090 OF 2026
6. During the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I fairly submitted that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the official Respondents and the Petitioner, as he was engaged by the contractor, Respondent No. 6. It was further submitted that, in a similar issue, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had already rendered a decision in W.A. No. 467 of 2023, dated 14.07.2023. In light of the said decision, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to avail such other remedy as may be open to him 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: 05.02.2026 LSP