of fair play demand that all the material on the basis of which she was charged or accused of any offence should be supplied to her. In the case on hand, learned counsel submits that the impugned order, dated 20.01.2020, is based upon material which is not supplied to the petitioner. He also points out that the decision was arrived at even before it was formally reduced into writing and the decision was taken because of external pressures. He points out that in reference no.6, the State Project Director, A.P. Samagra Shiksha, Amaravathi, has already issued instructions for termination of the services of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the entire show cause notice, proposed enquiry etcetera are only an eye wash and a pre-decision hearing was taken behind the back of the petitioner. Lastly, he points out that an enquiry report of the Girl Child Development Officer is also relied upon for coming to a conclusion in the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that even this document has not been served on the petitioner. He relies upon a judgment of the learned single Judge of the common High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in WP.no.38255 of 2018 and contends that the ratio of the decision squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case. He points out that the learned single Judge has held that even in case of termination of a tenure employee, rules of natural justice etcetera have to
