V Rajeshwara Rao Vs the State of Ap

V. Rajeshwara Rao, S/o. Late V.Mohan Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Assistant Engineer (Electrical), LIG-58, Staff Quarters, Sri Bhramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶13

The Commissioner of Endowments, Opp: S.Grand Restaurant, One Centre, Gollapudi, Vijayawada - 521 225.

¶14

The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Executive Officer, Sri Bhramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 Writ, Order or Direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings Rc.No.A1/E-684187/202 5, dt. 08.02.2025 dismissing the Petitioner from service from the post of Assistant Engineer, Electrical issued by the 3'^^ Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and

¶17

consequently reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, including back wages from the date of his illegal dismissal. lA No: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} I in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order Rc.No.A1/E-684187/2025, dt.08.02.2025 and consequently continue the Petitioner in service, pending disposal^{oftheWritPetition.} lA No: 2 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order Rc.No.C2/427723/2025, dt. 06.07.2025^{andallowthePetitioner} to continue stay in the quarter allotted to him pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.SRIKANTH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI T. VENU GOPAL,^SCFOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION)

¶22

The Court made the following order:

¶23

V

¶24

APHC010425262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

[3460]

¶26

TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 21873/2025

Between;

V Rajeshwara Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others

¶35

...RESPONDENT{S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.M SRIKANTH

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent{S);

¶39

1 .T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶40

(RAYALASEEMA REGION)

¶41

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶42

The Court made the following;

¶43

2

¶44

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶45

W P Nn,21873 of 2025

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

the Proceedings In the present Writ Petition dated 08.02.2025 issued by the Rc.No.A1 /E-684187/2025 the Petitioner from service from Respondent No.2 in dismissing the post of Assistant Engineer { Electrical) is in question.

¶48

The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on a and is contract basis pursuant to a regular selection process drawing a salary of Rs.48,460/-. While so, the impugned order of termination was passed on the ground that the Petitioner was found to be consuming alcohol at his house. As the action caused desecration of the tempie town and of the Petitioner Section 23 (5) (vii) of the Endowments Act was in violation of Conduct Rules, the impugned Order of and the Employee termination was passed.

¶49

the Petitioner submits that the 3. Learned counsel for enquiry was conducted nor any charges are baseless as no issued before passing the impugned show cause notice was

order.

— V

3

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents would submit that the misconduct of the Petitioner amounts to violation of the Employees Conduct Rules and Section 23 (5) (vii) of the Endowment Act, and therefore, the impugned^Order need not be interfered with.

¶54

Considering that the Petitioner has been in service since 2004 in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and is drawing a salary akin to a regular employee i.e., Rs.48,460/- per month, the impugned Order straight away terminating the Petitioner without conducting any enquiry is unsustainable, especiallyⁱⁿ the absence of any iota of proof as per the impugned Order to establish the misconduct.

¶55

The Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Brijesh Kumar and others^ and Swathi Priyadarshini v the State of Madhya Pradesh and others held that even the contract/outsourcing employees are entitled to an enquiry to be conducted when their services are being terminated on stigmatic grounds.

¶56