Allowed

Tiruveedula Murali Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2024WP/20221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Field Assistant removed by proceedings without enquiry challenged. The court found Clause 13(4) of the Field Assistant Human Resource Policy mandates a hearing, none was afforded, set aside the removal order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with hearing.

What did the court decide?

Removal proceedings Rc.No.38/A2/2024 dated 19.08.2024 set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration per FAHRP with hearing; no costs.

Tiruveedula Murali Babu Vs the State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

N N N

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV^ (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20221 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Tiruveedula Murali Babu, S/o. Nallaiah, Aged 37 years, Occ-Field Assistant, R/o. Garapadu village, Ungutur Mandal, Krishna District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶13

The District Collector, Kiiishna District, Machilipatnam.

¶14

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

¶15

The Assistant Project Director, Water Management Agency, Gudivada Cluster, Gudivada, Krishna District.

¶16

The Programme Officer - Mandal Development Officer, Ungutur Mandal, Krishna District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 order or direction more particularly one in the

¶19

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in RC. No. 38/A2/2024, Dt. 19-08-2024 passed by the 3'"'^ respondent by removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, Garapadu Village, Ungutur Mandal, Krishna District, without enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into his post.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 suspend the proceedings in RC. No. 38/A2/2024, Dt. 19- 082024 passed by the 3rd respondent by removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, Garapadu Village, Ungutur Mandal Krishna District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI R S MANIDHAR PINGALI,^AGP FOR SERVICES I

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY SC FOR MGNREGS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI G SRINIVAS REDDY, SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

[3331]

¶28

APHC010394172024

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶30

AT AMARAVATI

¶31

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶32

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 20221/2024

¶36

Between:

¶37

1.TIRUVEEDULA MURALI BABU, S/0. NALLAIAH, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC-FIELD ASSISTANT R/0. GARAPADU VILLAGE, UNGUTUR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶41

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KIIISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM.

¶42

3.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM.

¶43

4.THE ASSISTANT PROJECT DIRECTOR, WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, GUDIVADA CLUSTER, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶44

5.THE PROGRAMME OFFICER MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UNGUTUR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶45

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶46

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 tomay be pleased to issue an order or direction^{moreparticularlyone} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in RC. No. 38/A2/2024, Dt. 19-08-2024 passed by the 3rd respondent by removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, Garapadu^{Village,UnguturMandal,}

¶47

' ^RS,J W.P.No.20221 of 2024

¶48

Page 2 of 4

¶49

Krishna District, without enquiry is illegal, arbitrary^{andunconstitutionaland} consequently direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate^{thepetitionerintohis} post, and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the^HighCourt Dt.^may 19-^be 08-2024^pieased pleased ot susjlnd the proceedings in RC. No. 38/A2/2024, passed by the 3rd respondent by removing the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, Garapadu Village, Ungutur Mandal,^{KrishnaDistrict,pending} disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶51

1.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶53

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶54

The Court made the following:

¶55

■.ORDER:

¶56

The above writ petition is fiied to impugn the proceedings issued by i.38/A2/2024, dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.P1), whereby respondent No.3 vide Rc.No terminated from the post of Field Assistant, Garapadu the petitioner was -- Village Ungutur Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri R.S. Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for Manidhar Pingali, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1; Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri G. Srinivas Reddy, learned respondent No.5.

¶57

learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention 3. At the hearing the order impugned and submitted that no opportunity of of this Court to hearing, as mandated in Field Assistant Human Resource Policy, 2013 . He submitted that to the notice, dated (FAHRP), was afforded to the petitioner

Page 3 of 4

SRS,J

W.P.No.20221 of 2024

21.07.2024, the petitioner submitted an explanation under Ex.P3. However, the same was not properly considered.

¶64

Learned standing counsel, fairly submitted that the opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner during the inquiry, as seen from the proceedings.

¶65

FAHRP issued vide circular N0.666/EGS (P)/2012 dated 08.01.2013, prescribes guidelines regarding the service conditions. entitlements, emoluments, facilities and procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings. The procedure for disciplinary proceedings is covered under Clause 13 of FAHRP. Clause 13 (4) mandates affording of an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent.

¶66

In the case at hand, the proceedings impugned do not indicate affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus, respondent No.3 violated FAHRP.

¶67

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, since the opportunity of hearing is not provided to the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed, without going into the merits of the matter. The proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.38/A2/2024, dated 19.08.2024 (Ex.PI) are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.3. Learned respondent No.3 shall consider the petitioner’s explanation objectively and pass appropriate orders strictly as per FAHRP, within three weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order, duly affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No costs.

¶68

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶69

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT,REGISTRAR

¶70

S FFICER

¶71

To,

¶72

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶73

The District Collector, Kiiishna District, Machilipatnam.

¶74

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

¶75

¶76

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

¶77

The Assistant Project Director, Water Management Agency,^Gudivada Cluster, Gudivada, Krishna District.

¶78

The Programme Officer - Mandal Development Officer, Ungutur Mandal, Krishna District.

¶79

■)

¶80

One CC to Sri. Koti Reddy Idamakanti Advocate [OPUC]

¶81

Two CCs to GP For Services IV ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri M S R Chandra Murthy, SC For MGNREGS [OPUCj.

¶82

One CC to Sri G Srinivas Reddy, SC For ZPP MPP and^Gram Panchayat [OPUC].

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:25/11/2024

ORDER

WP.No.20221 of 2024

?p
4 ll>DeC 202^ 1
Wtooi Sacllon . ^

¶92

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Tiruveedula Murali Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tiruveedula Murali Babu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kandavalli Amit Kumar Vs the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Maddu Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V Rajeswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

Jalaparthi Kullayappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakanuru Nirmalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pemula Mabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh