A removed MGNREGS Field Assistant challenged his termination for allegedly raising bills for non-working employees, alleging procedural violations of FAJRP rules including failure to serve the inquiry report. The court found the orders reasoned and a fresh inquiry conducted pending appeal, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 34 OF 2023
Between:
S. Pallaki, S/o Bheemappa, Aged- 47 years. Occ- Field Assistant (Removed), R/o. Yatakal Gram Panchayat, Settur Mandal, AnanthapurDistrict.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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.05/HR/FA/Yatakal/Setturu/2022, dt. 08.12.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent thereby dismissed petitioner's appeal and confirmed the termination order in Rc.No.05/HR/FA/Yatakal/Setturu/2022, dt. 20.04.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent thereby terminated the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant working in Yatakal Gram Panchayat of Settur Mandal in Ananthapur District, without issuing show cause notice, without considering my explanation dt. 19.04.2022, without conducting enquiry.
Enquiry Report dt. 06.04.2022 df Assistant Project Director, Kalayndurg Cluster, without considering the Grounds of Appeal and without passing speaking order, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Field Assistants Human Resource Policy (FAHRP) Annexure to Circular No.666/EGS(P)/2012, dt. 08.01.2013 and provisions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005? and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set asid^ the proceedings dt. 20.04.2022 and 08.12.2022 issued by the respondents 2 and 3 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service for the said post v
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section ISt CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 03.01.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 \nt W.P.No. 34 of 2023
\A NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section ISlpePC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend operation of proceedings in Rc.No.05/HR/FA/Yatakal/SetturU/2022, dt.20.04.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent as confirmed by order dt.20.04.2022 in Rc.No.05/HR/FA/Yatakal/Setturu/2022 by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents Zand 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service in the post of Field Assistant working in Yatakal Gram Panchayat of Settur Mandal in Ananthapur District, pending disposal of the main writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI 3RINIVAS AMBATI
Counsel for the Respondent No^l : GP FOR SERVICES IV
r>
Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3: STANDING COUNSEL MGNREGS MSR CHANDRA MURTHY
The Court made the following: Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.34 OF 2023
Between:
S.Pallaki, S/o Bheemappa, Aged : 47 years, Occ: Field Assistant (Removed), R/o Yatakal Gram Panchayat, Settur Mandal, Ananthapur District.
... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and two others.
. Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner Sri Srinivasa Ambati Counsel for respondents GP for Services - IV and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy Standing Counsel
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed to declare the proceedingsof the District Collector-cum-District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS, Ananthapur District vide Rc.No.05/HR/FA/ Yatakal/Satturu/2022, dated 08.12.2022, confirming the proceedings of respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.05/HR/FA/Yatakal/Settur/22, dated 20.04.2022, whereby the petitioner was terminated from the service. as illegal and arbitrary.
Page 2 of 11
SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
- Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services IV appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2&3.
\
- Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.3 failed to adhere to the procedure prescribedunder Field Assistant Human Resource Policy (FAJRP) (hereinafter referred to as ‘FAJRP’) while conducting the inquiry and passed orders impugned in the writ petition. He also would submit that Rule 13 (B) (2) of FAJRP which deals with disciplinary actionwas not adhered to. Respondent No.3 failed to issue a show-cause notice as mandated under Rule 13(2) of the FAJRP. He also pointedoutthat as per Rule 13(3) of FAJRP, 14 days should be given to the individual to submit a defense written statement. However, the respondent authorities failed to adhere to the said Rule. He also would submit that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not considered and no reasons were assigned by respondentNo.3. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 and pleaded a specific ground that the Inquiry report said to havebeensubmitted by the Assistant Project Director, Kalandurg Clusterwasnotserved to him. The appellate authority failed to consider the same.
Page 3 of 11
SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
Eventually, prayed to set aside the orders impugned in the writ petition.
- Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2& 3 would submit that based upon the complaint made by the authorities, an inquiry was conducted, initially, the petitioner was kept under suspension. Later, a show-cause notice dated 07.04.2022 was issued directing the petitioner to attend to the personal inquiry on 19.04.2022. The explanation offered by the petitioner was considered by respondent No.3 objectively and passed orders. He also would submit that pending appeal, the appellate authority, as per Rule 13(c)(4) of FAJRP, directed the Project Director to conduct a fresh inquiry. The Project Director conducted a fresh inquiry and submitted the report to the Appellate authority. After considering the entire material, respondent No.2 passed orders. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
- The point for consideration is :
are “Whether the proceedings impugned in the writ petition sustainable or not?”
- As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner was kept under suspension (temporary out
\ I
Page 4 of 11
SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
of contract) by proceedings in Rc.No.05/HR/FA/Yatakal/ Setturu/2022 dated 29.03.2022 and the notice vide Rc.No.05/HR/FA/Yatakal/Settur/2022, dated 07.04.2022 was issued to the petitioner to attend to the inquiry on 19.04.2022. In the said notice dated 07.04.2022. the petitioner was also directed to submit the explanation by enclosing relevant documents, The petitioner attended the inquiry and submitted the explanation vide Ex.P1. Respondent No.3 passed orders dated 28.04.2022 terminating the petitioner from service.
- While passing the said order, respondent No.3 concluded that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Further observed that three persons by name Sri S.Karim Sab Smt.Mala Lakshmakka and Sri Ediga Ramalakshmi, though they have not attended the works, bills were raised in their names and hence, the petitioner violated the Rules under Field Assistant Human Resource Policy (FAJRP).
- Indeed, in the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2, it was specifically pleaded that the respondent authority -.(respondent No.3) failed to furnish a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Assistant Project Director, Kalandurg Cluster. It is
Page 5 of 11
SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
mention here that pending the appeal, the appellate pertinent to authority appointed the Project Director to conductafreshinquiryas submitted a report vide FAJRP. The Project Director per dated 11.11.2022. The Rc.No.05/HR/FA/Yatakal/Setturu/2022, statements filed along with the counter affidavit wouldsubstantiate used to raise the allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner bills and draw the amount, despite the concerned employees not work. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel that attending the failure to submit the report vitiates the proceedings falls to the fresh inquiry was conducted ground. In fact, as discussed supra, a pending appeal.
'2013 (2) ALT 517 (S.B.)
Page 6 of 11
SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
- Case at hand, of course, it was observed in the order of respondent No.3 that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, however, the other issues were alsodiscussedlike claiming bills in the name of Sri S.Karim Sab, Smt.MalaLakshmakka and Smt.Ediga Ramalakshmi, despite their not attendingtheworks. In the appeal by the petitioner, the appellate authority while exercising powers under 13(c) of FAJRP, directed further inquiry. The Project Director himself conducted inquiry and submitted a report.
- As discussed supra, the statements of the persons, in whose names bills were claimed, made the things more thandiscernable about the illegal acts committed by the petitioner.
- This Court while exercising the Judicial Review underSection 226 of the Constitution of India will not act as appellate authority. This Court normally views irregularity or impropriety qua the decision-making process in the order impugned. If the authority fails to adhere to rules or violates principles of natural justice this Court will interfere with the said decision-making process and the consequential proceedings. While explaining the scope of judicial
Page 7 of 11
SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
review, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jayrajbhai JayantibhaiPatelVs. Aniibhai Nathubhai PateP, the Hon’ble Apex Court heldthus:
'2006 (8) see 200
\ SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
Page 8 of 11
upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the Individual or society. Though judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly Irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and Its Jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial reviewIslimited to the deficiency in the decision-making process andnotthe decision.” (emphasis is mine)
'9. Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated by existence of different circumstances. Whenever both the decision-making process and the decision taken are based on Irrelevant facts, while Ignoring relevant considerations,such an action can normally be termed as “arbitrary”. Where the process of decision-making Is followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a conclusion, the action maystillfallin the category of arbitrariness. Of course, the sufficiency or othenwise of the reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration within the scope of judicial review. Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity, and application of mind are some
'2011 AIR sew 5636
Page 9 of 11
SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
\
of the prerequisites of proper decision-making. Theconceptof transparency in the decision-making process of theStatehas also become an essential part of our administrativelaw.
- Action by the State, whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even wheretherules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with principles offairnessand good governance, is an implied obligation upon theauthorities when vested with the powers to pass orders of a determinative nature. The standard of fairness is also dependent upon certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons,subjectto regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able toreasonably anticipate the order for the action that the StateIslikelytotake In a given situation. Arbitrariness and discriminationhaveInbuilt elements of uncertainty as the decisions of the Statewouldthen differ from person to person and from situation tosituation,even if the determinative factors of the situations In question were identical. This uncertainty must be avoided ”
- Thus, as seen from the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, arbitrariness in State action even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, is impermissible. In suchcases,theCourts can exercise jurisdiction vested with it by exercisingpowersunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5
Page 10 of 11
SRS, J W.P.No.34 of 2023
- The order passed by respondent No.3 confirmed by the respondent No.2 being reasoned and without arbitrariness this Court does not find merit in the writ petition. No interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Given the discussion made supra, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
To,
SDI- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
Two^Cs to GP FOR SERVICES IV, High Court of Andhra
HIGH COURT
DATED:11/07/2024
ORDER
WP.No.34 of 2023
^ 07 MAR® S
^^&oespatc^5^
dismissing the wp without COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination and appellate proceedings against the Field Assistant were procedurally flawed under the FAJRP and unsustainable?
Whether judicial review should interfere with the decision-making process in this dismissal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Ashok Kumar and others v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and anotherReferred¶9
2013 (2) ALT 517 (S.B.)
Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai PatelRelied on¶12
2006 (8) SCC 200 · Who else cites this
Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and othersRelied on¶13
2011 AIR SCW 5636 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S. Pallaki
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department
District Collector-cum-District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS, Ananthapur District
Project Director-cum-Additional District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGS, District Water Management Agency, Ananthapur District
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
