Allowed

Vajragiri Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Aug 2024WP/20579/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Field Assistant under MGNREGS terminated by proceedings dated 26.05.2015 without notice or enquiry. Court set aside termination, relying on its earlier order in W.P.No.11144 of 2015, and directed a detailed enquiry on the petitioner's representation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination proceedings set aside; respondents to conduct detailed enquiry on petitioner's representation within three months.

Vajragiri Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

■* IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20579 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vajragiri Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged : 40 years, Occ: Field Assistant (Under Termination) MGNREGS, R/o. ST Colony, Nakarikallu (V & M), Guntur District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department,

¶13

Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Hermitage Complex, HACA Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

The District Collector, Guntur District at Guntur.

¶16

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Guntur District, Guntur.

¶17

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer / Programme Oficer, MGNREGS, Nakarekallu Mandal, Guntur District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 a Writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.685/2015/F-Section Dated: 26.05.2015 issued by 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violating of principles of natural justice, contrary to Circular No. 398/SRDS/37/SPM (DM) 2012, dated: 17.03.2012, contrary to

¶20

G.O.Ms.No.98, Dt. 09.03.2010 and also contrary to law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Field Assistant under MGNREGS Scheme to Nakarikallu Gram Panchayat and Mandal, Guntur District with all consequential and incidental benefits attached to the post,

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 26503 OF 2015)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings Rc.No.685/2015/ F-Section , dated; 26.05.2015 issued by the 4th respondent

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P VV SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY STANDING COUNSEL FOR MGNREGS

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI S SRINIVASULA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

A..

APHC010341452015

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

¶29

[3333]

¶30

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 20579/2015

¶34

Between:

¶35

Vajragiri Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

P VV SATYANARAYANA

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3.SSRINIVASULA REDDY

¶42

4.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following:

¶43

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶46

of India, seeking the following relief:

¶47

“to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings In Rc. No.^685/2015/F- Section Dated 26.05.2015 issued by 4'" respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violating of principles of natural justice, contrary to Circular N0.398/SRDS/37/SPM (DM) 2012, dated 17.03.2012, contrary^to G. O. Ms. No.98, Dt.09.03.2010 and also contrary to law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and conseguently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Field Assistant under MGNREGS Scheme to Nakarikallu Gram Panchayat and Mandal, Guntur District with all consequential and incidental benefits attached to the post....”

¶48

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant under MGNREGS Scheme on 13.03.2012 and allotted to Nakarekallu Gram Panchayat and worked till 28.05.2015, the date of the impugned proceedings, through which he was removed. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 09.03.2010, wherein the Rules of conducting Social audit are contemplated and also issued disciplinary policy on the Field Assistants from time to time and now Circular No.398/SRDS /37(SPM(DM)/2012, Dt.17.03.2012 is in force. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has been working for the utmost satisfaction of the respondent authorities, they have terminated the petitioner^{fromservicesvide} Rc.No.685/2015/F-Section Dated 26.05.2015 issued by 4'*^ respondent even without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry. Challenging the same, present Writ Petition is filed.

¶49

¶50

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.M.S.R, Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mr.S.Srinivasula Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 5"" respondent. Perused the material on record.

¶51

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that present impugned orders are issued without issuing any notice and without following due procedure of law. Therefore, prayed to set aside the^same.

¶52

The 4"" respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was initially appointed as Field Assistant in the year 2012 on contract basis for a period of one year at Nakarekallu Gram Panchayat and Mandal,^{GunturDistrictunder} Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The contract agreement of the petitioner was extended year after year and it comes to an end on 30-06-2015. It is further stated that as the petitioner was absent for more than 30 days, as per Circular No.042/SRDS/HR/200^9dated 16.03.2009 issued by the Commissioner, the disciplinary authority has to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is further stated that as the petitioner remained continuously absent for a period of one month without obtaining any prior permission/intimation, it would be deemed to be abandonment of the contract and will result in automatic termination of the contract forthwith without any further notice. As such, requested this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶53

¶54

On perusal of ^ the proceedings of the Project Director, dated 26.05.2015, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, it can be understood that as the petitioner has not been attending^{tothedutiesforthe} past 07 months, the name of the petitioner was requested^{tobedeletedfrom} the list of the Field Assistant in the Software and tag the name of the Technical Assistant for generation of payment and that the Special Commissioner and Member Secretary, Rural Development Service, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued letter No.42/SRDS/HR/2009,^{dated16.04.2009} wherein it is directed to take disciplinary action against the individuals, who are absent for more than 30 days. However, there is no reference with regard to the issuance of any charge memo by framing charges^{andevenissuance} of any notice to the petitioner prior to termination and as well as conducting of enquiry so as to prove the allegation against the petitioner for taking any disciplinary action.

¶55

Under similar circumstances in the case of Field Assistant, this Court, after elaborate discussion, has passed orders on 03.03.2023 allowing the W.P.No. 11144 of 2015 with the following directions;-

¶56

[(

¶57

In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings issued vide R.C. No. 99/2013/NREGS/S.A dated 30.04.2013 passed by the 4'^ respondent by directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 19.05.2014 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after conducting a detailed enquiry by giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this^order.”

¶58

¶59

In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to set aside the proceedings vide Rc. No.685/2015/F-Section Dated 26.05.2015 issued by 4 th respondent, terminating the services of the petitioner^as Field Assistant of Nakarikallu Gram Panchayat and Mandal, as it was issued without issuing any notice, conducting any enquiry, and duly giving any opportunity of hearing.

¶60

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms^{oftheorderdated} 03.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.11144 of 2015, by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Rc. No.685/2015/F-Section Dated 26.05.2015 issued by 4 th respondent and directing the respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner, on a representation submitted by the petitioner. Said process shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a representation from the petitioner. No costs.

¶61

Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order^{dated03.03.2023} passed in W.P.No.11144 of 2015.

¶62

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶63

Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEcfrON OFFICER

To,

Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development^Department Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶68

The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Hermitage Complex, HACA Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶69

The District Collector, Guntur District at Guntur. 4. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Guntur District, Guntur.

¶70

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer / Programme Oficer, MGNREGS, Nakarekallu Mandal, Guntur District.

¶71

One CC to SRI. P VV SATYANARAYANA Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ, High Court of Andhra

¶73

Pradesh. [OUT]

¶74

One CC to SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY STANDING COUNSEL FOR MGNREGS, [OPUC]

¶75

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶76

One CC to SRI S SRINIVASULA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 11. Three CD Copies

bhb

HIGH COURT

VS,J

DATED:07/08/2024

ORDER

WP.No.20579of 2015

r
3 0 SEP 2"^ B
ffa:O
Curre nt Section
^‘Oe-SPATC

¶85

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Vajragiri Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vajragiri Srinivasa Rao, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Kothari Vs State of Ap

P.Rajani Kumari Vs State of Ap

D.v.v.G.K.Prasad Vs State of Ap

Kondamudi Ananda Kumar, Guntur District and 10 Others Vs Chief Secy, G.A.D. Dept, Hyderabad and 5 Others

V.Prakash Vs the Chairamn and M.D., Apcpdcl.,Now Apspdcl.,and 2 Others

K.Rajanna Vs The a.P.State Road Transport Corporation rep by its