Disposed

V. Anki Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2024WP/19971/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition wherein the field assistant sought execution of his duty. The petitioners counsel submitted and respondents counsel consented to the order without hearing arguments.

What did the court decide?

The court directed respondents 3 to 5 not to obstruct the petitioner from discharging his duties as Field Assistant until proper disciplinary proceedings are concluded.

V. Anki Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19971 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

V. Anki Reddy, S/o. Venkateswarlu Reddy, Aged 33 years,^{OccSeniorMate/} Field Assistant Mahathma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme R/o. Manulapudi Village, Butchireddypalem Mandal,^SPSR Nellore District, State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development,^Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh

¶13

The Project Director, The District Water Management Agency (DWMA) SPSR Nellore District, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh

¶14

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Butchireddpalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P

¶15

Assistant Project Officer, District Wate£ Management Agency (DWMA) Kovur Cluster, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 4 and 5 in preventing the petitioner from performing his duties as Field Assistant in Manulapudi Village, Butchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,^{violativeofArticles14} and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents^{3to5toallowthe} petitioner to continue his duties as Field Assistant in Manulapudi Village, Butchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, until the completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 22-08-2024 issued by Respondent^No.4.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 to direct the respondents 3 to 5 to permit the petitioner to continue his duties as Field Assistant in Manulapudi Village, Butchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending the final disposal of this Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI K ASHOK REP FOR^SRIVR MACHAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondents 3 & 5 : SRI M.S.R. CHANDRA MURTHY, SC FOR DWMA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : M/S. B.V. APARNA LAKSHMI, SC for ZPP, MPP&GP The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

[3333]

¶23

APHC010387222024

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 19971/2024

Between:

V. Anki Reddy

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.VR MACHAVARAM

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

3.B VAPARNA LAKSHMI

The Court made the following:

¶41

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following^relief;

¶44

"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,^{moreparticularlyoneinthe} nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of respondents 4 and 5 in preventing the petitioner from performing his duties^{asFieldAssistantinManulapudi} Village, Butchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of^{theConstitutionofIndiaapartfrom} being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently^{directtherespondents3to} 5 to allow the petitioner to continue his duties as^{FieldAssistantinManulapudiVillage,} Butchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore, District until the completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.08.2024 issued by Respondent No.4.." Mate/Field 2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Senior Assistant in Manulapudi Village, Butchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District on 21.11.2020. Since the date of his appointment, the petitioner has worked with utmost satisfaction of his superiors and has reached all the targets entrusted to him under the spirit of noble^{schemeof‘MahatmaGandhi} National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme’ [MEGNREGA]. While so, on the recommendations of the respondent, the 4'^ respondent^issuedaShow Cause notice dated 22.08.2024 to show cause as to why disciplinary action cannot be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner^{submittedadetailed} explanation on 25.08.2024 denying the allegations and it was received by the 4‘^ respondent the same day. Despite the same, the^{petitionerwasbarred} from attending the work since the date of the Show^Cause notice and no

¶45

¶46

inquiry was conducted to provide the petitioner an opportunity to defend his case. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶47

Heard Sri K.Ashok, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr.M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent^No.3and5and Smt B.V.Aparna Laxmi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4' respondent issued Show Cause Notice dated 22.08.2024 (Ex.P1), to which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 25.08.2024 (Ex.P2). But without considering the same, the respondents 4 and 5 are not allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties as Field Assistant. Therefore, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

¶49

Learned Standing Counsel on instructions of the 5'" respondent would submit that neither the 4'" respondent nor the 5'" respondent obstructed the petitioner from discharging his duties as Field Assistant. He would submit that the show cause notice issued by the 4'" respondent and the explanation submitted by the petitioner will be forwarded to the 5"’ respondent and the 5' respondent, in turn, will consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶50

¶51

He further submits that unless and until the order is passed, the petitioner will not be terminated from service.

¶52

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the instructions of learned Standing Counsel,^{theWritPetitionis} disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent^{ofboththecounsels.} directing the respondents 3 to 5 not to obstruct the petitioner from discharging duties as Field Assistant in Manulapudi Village, Butchireddypale^m Mandal SPSR Nellore District, without following due process. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition^{shallstandclosed.}

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANTjREGISTRAR ' c SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat^RajandRural Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings,

¶58

Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶59

The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore,^{AndhraPradesh}

¶60

The Project Director, The District Water Management^Agency(DWMA) SPSR Nellore District, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh

¶61

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Butchireddpalem^Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P

¶62

The Assistant Project Officer, District Water Management^Agency (DWMA) Kovur Cluster, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra^Pradesh

¶63

One CC to SRI V R MACHAVARAM Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

Two CCs to GP for SERVICES IV, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT]

¶65

Two CCs to GP for SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶66

One CC To SRI M.S.R. CHANDRA MURTHY, SC for DWMA [OPUC]

¶67

One CC to M/S. B.V. APARNA LAKSHMI, SC for ZPP, MPP^& GP [OPUC]

¶68

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19971 of 2024

of
71( OCT 202't COm
^O Current Section

¶75

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

V. Anki Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Anki Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simma Usha, Srikakulam Dist.,a.P. Vs the Dist.Project Director, Woman,Child,Srikakulam, and 5 Otrs.

P. Geetha Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

B.Subba Reddy, Krishna Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Endowments,Hyd.,and 3 Otrs.

S.R.M.Rama Bhupathi Dev, Wg Dist Vs Prl. Secretary, Agrl. * Co-Op Dept., Hyd and 2 Others

Alavala Rohini Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kotapati Lakshminarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh