WP/3805/2012 of Vallapu Sathi Babu Vs The Mandal Parishad Development Officer on 31 December 2024

1. Vallapu Sathi Babu, S/o. Chinnayya, aged 30 years,Field AssistantO/o. MPDO, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District R/o. D.No. 10-63, SC Peta, Kattamuru Village,O/o. MPDO, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District R/o. D.No. 10-63, SC Peta, Kattamuru Village,

2. Adina Satish, S/o. China Veerabhadra Rao, aged 30 years. Mate O/o.MPDO, Peddapuram, East Godavari District R/o. D.No. 9-156, ShettyMPDO, Peddapuram, East Godavari District R/o. D.No. 9-156, ShettyBalija Veedhi, Kattamuru Village,

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, and Program[Officer](NREGS), Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District(NREGS), Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District

2. The District Collector & D.P.C., NREGS, A.P., Kakinada,[East][ Godavari]DistrictDistrict

3. The Project Director, NREGS, Kakinada, East Godavari District

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly onein thenature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first Respondent inissuing proceedings dt. 14.8.2008 terminating petitioner services withoutproper enquiry and rejecting petitioners Appeal as unreasonable unjust,and consequently set aside the same and reinstate thepetitionersintoservice.

LA. NO: 1 OF 2012rWPMP, NO: 4775 OF

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying thatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, the High Courtmay be pleased to consider petitioners representation dt. 26.3.2011 in viewof the letter dt. 30.3.2011 of Sub-Inspector of Police,Peddapuram EastGodavari District pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Counsel for the Petltioner(s):SRI K V RAJASREECounsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ &RURALDEVELOPMENTCounsel for the Respondents No.2,3: SRI M S R CHANDRAMURTHY(SC FOR NREGS)

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N+WRIT PETITION No.3805 OF 2012

%31.12.2024

#Between:VallapuSathi Babu,S/o Chinnayya Aged about 30 years,Occ:FieldAssistant,O/o MPDO,Peddapuram(M)East GodavariDistrict,R/o.D.No.10-63, SC Peta Kattamuru Village, Peddapuram (M),[East][ Godavari]District and another.

...PETITIONER

AND

The MandalParishadDevelopmentOfficer andProgramOfficer(NREGS),PeddapuramMandal,EastGodavariDistrictandtwoothers.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

I.Sri. K.V.RajasreeCounsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV

SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY)

The Court made the following:

<Gist:>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2014) 3 see 502

2. (2000) 3 SCO 239

3. (2024) 5 SCO 306

This Court made the following:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N+WRIT PETITION No.3«05 OF 2012%31.12.2024

#Between:

Vallapu Sathi Babu, S/o Chinnayya Aged about 30 yearsOccFieldPeddapuram (M) East GodavariDistrict,R/o.D.No.10-63, SC Peta Kattamuru Village, Peddapuram (M), East GodavariDistrict and another.

...PETITIONER

AND

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer and ProgramOfficer(NREGS), PeddapuramMandal,East GodavariDistrictandtwoothers.

...RESPONDENT(S):

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 31.12.2024

SUBMITTED FORAPPROVAI•

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers mayybe allowed to see the Judgments?Yes/No2.Whether the copies of order may be markedyto Law Reporters/Journals?Yes/No3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the faircopy of the order?

Yes/No

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

%

APHC010669202012IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI[3457]%(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

WRIT PETITION NO: 3805/2012

Between:

...PETITIONER(S)

Vallapu Sathi Babu and Others

AND

...RESPONDENT(S)

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer and OthersCounsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. KVRAJASREE

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY)

2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV

The Court made the following Order:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

2. Thepetitionersarechallenging the proceedings dated 14.08.2008whereby the petitioners’ services were terminated.[The][ learned][ counsel][ for][ the]submits that the order of termination does not give[a][ valid][ reason]petitionersfor terminationand that the order of termination ought to be a Speaking[Order.]Field Assistant implementing the NationalThe petitioner was working as aRural Employment Guarantee Scheme of the Central Government.whereby the petitioners’ services were terminated.[The][ learned][ counsel][ for][ the]submits that the order of termination does not give[a][ valid][ reason]petitionersfor terminationand that the order of termination ought to be a Speaking[Order.]Field Assistant implementing the NationalThe petitioner was working as aRural Employment Guarantee Scheme of the Central Government.

3. It is alleged that the Field Assistants have misappropriatedan amount ofRs.8,50,000/- by claiming the wages for 1427 job cards for 6 days thoughnoworkwasexecuted,amountwasclaimedandtheamountwasmisappropriated. Crime No.26 of 2009 was also registered against the FieldAssistants including the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police in theirinvestigation have not found any proof against the petitioner.It is submittedthat the respondents have issued impugned proceedings without conductingany enquiry and the order dated 14.08.2008 was issued basing on the showcause notice issued by the respondents and the reply submitted by thepetitioners. The impugned proceedings are bereft of anydetails and theproceedings are glaring examples for the violation of principles of naturaljustice.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that theengagement of the petitioners was on a contract basis for a fixed period ofone year and that he was not a regular employee of the respondents.ItISsubmitted that enquiry was conducted and that enquiry report had confirmedthat 1500 wage seekers’ details were entered without any work as such aCriminalCasewasalsofiled.TheDistrictCollectorhaddirectedthetermination of the Field Assistants and also to file a case after perusing theenquiry report.It is also submitted that the petitioners have approached thisCourt after more than four years of passing the impugned proceedings. There is no reason assigned for not challenging the impugned[proceedings][ soon]after, they were issued.

6. It is also submitted that an amount of Rs.7,03,765/-[was][ recovered][ and]re-creditedto theaccountof the Employment GuaranteeScheme.Itissubmitted that presently one Sri K. Veerababu is working[as][ a][ Field][ Assistant]in the place of the petitioners since 29.01.2019.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance[on][ the][ following]Judgments in Dipak Babaria and another vs. State of Gujarat and others^V.P.AhuJa vs. State of Punjab and others^ and No.2809759H[Ex-Recruit]Babanna Machched vs. Union of India and others^.Judgments in Dipak Babaria and another vs. State of Gujarat and others^V.P.AhuJa vs. State of Punjab and others^ and No.2809759H[Ex-Recruit]Babanna Machched vs. Union of India and others^.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that reasons must[be][ assigned][ in]orders passed in cases of imposing of punishment.It[is][ settled][ preposition][ of]law that an Order without reasons has to be set aside.orders passed in cases of imposing of punishment.It[is][ settled][ preposition][ of]law that an Order without reasons has to be set aside.

9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel[and][ after][ perusing]the impugned proceedings,it is evident that the impugned[proceedings][ are]passed only on the explanation submitted by the petitioners.[The][ impugned]orderspecifiesthattheexplanationwasfoundnotconvincingandunacceptable.Onthesegroundstheservicesofthepetitionerswereterminatedwitheffectfrom14.08.2008.Thepetitionersalsohadanopportunityof filing an Appeal before the AdditionalProject Director andDistrict Water Management Agency within 30 days from[the][ said date.][ The]the impugned proceedings,it is evident that the impugned[proceedings][ are]passed only on the explanation submitted by the petitioners.[The][ impugned]orderspecifiesthattheexplanationwasfoundnotconvincingandunacceptable.Onthesegroundstheservicesofthepetitionerswereterminatedwitheffectfrom14.08.2008.Thepetitionersalsohadanopportunityof filing an Appeal before the AdditionalProject Director andDistrict Water Management Agency within 30 days from[the][ said date.][ The]

1 (2014) 3 see 502

2 (2000) 3 see 239

3 (2024) 5 see 306

petitioners submitted an Appeai on 12.09.2008 before the Appellate authorityseeking reinstatement as Field Assistants.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionersthat no orderswere passed in the Appeal.

11.

11. The respondents in their counter have submitted that the ordersi"nAppeal were not passed as the petitioners themselves in the Appeal pleadingsadmitted the mistakes as such no further orderswere passed.Itis alsosubmiHed that the petitioners are no ionger working as a Field Assistants andthat another Fieid Assistant is working in the piace of the petitioners from 2019onwards.Appeal were not passed as the petitioners themselves in the Appeal pleadingsadmitted the mistakes as such no further orderswere passed.Itis alsosubmiHed that the petitioners are no ionger working as a Field Assistants andthat another Fieid Assistant is working in the piace of the petitioners from 2019onwards.

12. The impugned proceedings deserves to be set aside for the followingreasons:reasons:

1. The impugned proceedings terminating the service of the petitionerswithout conducting any enquiry. The orders of terminationbasingontheexplanation cannot with stand the scrutiny of law and logic. ReasoningISi:considered as the most essential ingredient of order which will have to betested before the Court of law. An order without reason would ipso factorenderit illogical, irrational, arbitrary bad in law and as such deserves to beset aside.without conducting any enquiry. The orders of terminationbasingontheexplanation cannot with stand the scrutiny of law and logic. ReasoningISi:considered as the most essential ingredient of order which will have to betested before the Court of law. An order without reason would ipso factorenderit illogical, irrational, arbitrary bad in law and as such deserves to beset aside.

2. Insofar as, the respondents is concerned with regard to the pendency ofthe Appeal is concerned. The appellate authority ought to have disposed theAppeal soon after the same is filed.

13.

13. As the impugned proceedings have to be set aside the petitioners shallbe considered for reinstatement subject to their beingeligibleinall otheraspects. The competent authorities are at liberty to take steps against thepetitioners by following the due procedure of law andin accordance with theRules.be considered for reinstatement subject to their beingeligibleinall otheraspects. The competent authorities are at liberty to take steps against thepetitioners by following the due procedure of law andin accordance with theRules.

14. With these observations, this Writ Petition is allowed in part. No costs.As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFIASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SEOFFICER

One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N(For His Lordship’s kind Perusal)(For His Lordship’s kind Perusal)

To,

1. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, and Program[Officer](NREGS), Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District(NREGS), Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District

2. The District Collector& D.P.C., NREGS,A.P., Kakinada,[East][ Godavari]DistrictDistrict

3. The Project Director, NREGS, Kakinada, East Godavari[District]

One CC to SRI. K. V. RAJASREE, Advocate [OPUC]

4.

5. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT,High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

6 One CC to SRI. M.S.R. CHANDRAMURTHY(SCFORNREGS) Advocate [OPUC]NREGS) Advocate [OPUC]

7. 9 L.R. Copies

8. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of[Law,][ Justice][ &]Company Affairs, New Delhi.Company Affairs, New Delhi.

9. The Secretary, A.P. High Court Advocates Association,[High][ Court][ of]A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District.A.P. at Amaravati, Guntur District.

10. Three C.D.Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDERWP.No.3805 of 2012

CoI’2 8 JAN 2C:j^. Current Section

ALLOWING THE WP IN PART WITHOUT COSTS