K Pakeeru @ Ravi Kiran Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K PAKEERU @ RAVI KIRAN, S/O. APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BARBER, EMP.I.D.NO.100002644467, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, ELURU (PROVISIONALLY ALLOTTED TO WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM) (UNDER ORDERS OF TERMINATION).

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AT BHIMAVARAM.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 in

¶17

2

¶18

the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned impugned Proceedings C.No.153/A1/2022, D.O.No.22/2022, dated 31-5-2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent as being illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to duty as Barbar or any other post with all consequential and attendant benefits, and to pass such other order.

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned Proceedings C.No.153/A1/2022, D.O.No.22/2022, dated 31-5-2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent and direct the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner as Barbar or in any other post, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.15024 of 2023

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned proceedings C.No.153/A1/2022, D.O.No.22/2022, dated 31.05.2022 issued by Respondent No.3, wherein the services of the Petitioner were terminated from the rolls of Outsourcing with immediate effect.

¶31

The facts leading to file of the present Writ Petition are as follows:-

¶32

The Petitioner was appointed as Barber on outsourcing basis on 04.06.2013 in the office of the District Police Officer, West Godavari, Eluru vide Proceedings in D.O.No.654/2013, C.No.8943/A1/2009, dated 04.06.2013. While so, a show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 12.05.2022 stating that the Petitioner was not performing the Barber duties to the police personnel and when the duty officer asked to do Barber duties, the Petitioner had refused to do the said work. Consequent thereto, taking note of the explanation given by the Petitioner that the impugned proceedings dated 31.05.2022 was issued terminating the services of the Petitioner from the rolls of outsourcing staff with immediate effect. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶33

4

¶34

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner

¶35

hails from the Barbers’ family and he has knowledge and skill with regard to the Barber work and the explanation given to the show-cause notice on a wrong advice given to him.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submits that the impugned order cannot be faulted since the Petitioner himself has submitted in his explanation that the he does not know the Barber work.

¶37

Having heard the respective counsel, at the first instance, the impugned order terminating the services of the Petitioner cannot be faulted, as the Petitioner had admitted that he is not having sufficient skills to do the Barber work.

¶38

The Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the Petitioner to submit a representation to the Respondents for re-consideration of the impugned order of termination. On such representation, the Respondents may consider the same for fresh appointment of the Barber subject to the Petitioner having necessary skills.

¶39