Disposed¶84

S. Seshnna, v. Southern Power Distribution Com. of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jul 2025WP/4053/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSPDCL contract Junior Lineman terminated by Memo D.No.195 dt.27-12-2017 without enquiry; writ of mandamus under Article 226 claiming breach of natural justice (non-speaking order despite show cause notice) and Articles 14 & 16; interim suspension 22.02.2018; reinstatement in compliance; petitioner died during pendency; writ disposed making legal representatives entitled to employment benefits; no costs; Kurnool; counsel D. Linga Rao for petitioner, Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC for APSPDCL.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on the strength of the interim suspension order dated 22.02.2018; the Legal Representatives of the deceased petitioner declared entitled to any benefits regarding his employment; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. ¶84

S. Seshnna, Vs Southern Power Distribution… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the termination of the petitioner's services by Memo dated 27-12-2017, effected on the directions of higher authority without conducting any enquiry, is arbitrary, illegal, opposed to natural justice, stigmatic, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. +2 more

¶55

Court's answer

Giving of reasons is part of the principle of natural justice; the impugned termination order, though preceded by a show cause notice and the petitioner's explanation, contained no reasons why the explanation was rejected, shocked the conscience of the Court, and therefore prime facie could not be sustained, warranting interim suspension.

¶83

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the impugned order prime facie is not sustainable, and on that basis the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶84

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner is no more, the Legal Representatives of the petitioner are entitled to get any benefits regarding the employment of the petitioner.ratio¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa), 04.07.2025 — W.P. No.4053 of 2018: A contract Junior Lineman of APSPDCL challenged, under Article 226, his termination by Memo No. DEE/O/KNL/JAO/Adm/EL/D.No. 195 dated 27-12-2017 issued by the 4th respondent on higher authority's directions without any enquiry, alleging arbitrariness, breach of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 16. An interim order dated 22.02.2018 had already suspended the termination on the ground that, though preceded by a show cause notice and the petitioner's explanation, the impugned order gave no reasons for rejecting the explanation — giving of reasons being part of natural justice — and hence was prime facie unsustainable (paras 6, 82-83). During pendency the petitioner was reinstated in compliance with the interim orders and thereafter died (para 4). Holding the impugned order prime facie unsustainable in the light of the interim order, the Court disposed of the writ petition, declaring the Legal Representatives of the deceased petitioner entitled to any employment-related benefits, with no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions (paras 7-8).

¶1

APHC010089602018

¶2

Hjijs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No: 4053 OF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

S. Seshnna, S/o Late S. Pullanna, Aged about 54 years, Junior Lineman (Contract basis) O/o. The Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Nandikotkur Jupadu Bungalow, Kurnool District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited (APSPDCL), rep. By its Chairman & Managing Director, Kurnool,^A.P.

¶14

The Chief General Manager, (HRD), A.P.S.P.D.C.L Kurnool, A.P.

¶15

The Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Kurnool, AP.

¶16

The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Kurnool, A.P.

¶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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the action of the 4 th respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner^{onthedirectionsofthe} higher authority without conducting any enquiry vide impugned Memo No. DEE/O/KNL/JAO/Adm/EL/D.No. 195 dated 27-12-2017 as being arbitrary, illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice, stigmatic, discriminatory and in

¶19

1!—«ff

¶20

violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to^{beretainedandcontinued} in service as Contract Junior Lineman with all Consequential^benefits.

¶21

lA No: 1 OF 2018

¶22

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 suspend the impugned Memo No. DEE/O/KNL/JAO/Adm/EL/D.No. 195 dated 27-12-2017 issued by the 4**^ respondent and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Contract Junior Lineman in the interest of justice. lA No: 2 OF 2018

¶23

Between:

¶24

The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited (APSPDCL), rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, Kurnool,^A.P.

¶25

The Chief General Manager, (FIRD), A.P.S.P.D.C.L Kurnool, A.P.

¶26

The Superintending Engineer (Operation), A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Kurnool, A.P.

¶27

The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Kurnool, A.P.

¶28

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶29

AND

¶30

S. Seshnna, S/o Late S. Pullanna, Aged about 54 years. Junior Lineman (Contract basis) O/o. The Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Nandikotkur Jupadu Bungalow, Kurnool District.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER

¶32

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 vacate the interim order made in lA No.1 of 2018 in WP No.4053 if 2018 dated 22.02.2018.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. LINGA RAO

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA,^SCFOR

¶35

APSPDCL

¶36

The Court made the following order:

¶37

APHC010089602018

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶39

ATAMARAVATI

¶40

[3396]

¶41

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶42

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶43

PRESENT

¶44

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO: 4053/2018

¶46

Between:

¶47

1.S. SESHNNA,, S/0 LATE S. PULLANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, JUNIOR LINEMAN (CONTRACT BASIS) 0/0. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., NANDIKOTKUR JUPADU BUNGALOW, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶48

...PETITIONER

¶49

AND

¶50

1.SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COM OF A P, THE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED (APSPDCL), REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KURNOOL, A.P.

¶51

2.THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, (FIRD), A.P.S.P.D.C.L KURNOOL, A.P.

¶52

3.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION, A.P.S.P.D.C.L. KURNOOL,AP.

¶53

4.THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER OPERATION, A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,, KURNOOL, AP.

...RESPONDENT(S):

authority without conducting any enquiry vide impugned Memo No. DEE/O/KNL/JAO/Adm/EL/D.No. 195 dated 27-12-2017 as being arbitrary, illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice, stigmatic, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to^{beretainedandcontinuedin} service as Contract Junior Lineman with all Consequential benefits and to pass

¶58

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶59

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 suspend the impugned Memo No. DEE/O/KNL/JAO/Adm/EL/D.No.^195dated 27-12-2017 issued by the 4th respondent and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Contract Junior Lineman in the interest of justice and to pass

¶60

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶61

¶62

Counsel for the Petitioner;

¶63

1.D LINGA RAO

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶65

Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL

¶66

2..

¶67

The Court made the following:

¶68

¶69

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶70

WRIT PETITION NO: 4503/2018

¶71

ORDER:

¶72

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

¶73

the following prayer for;

¶74

“...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 4th respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner on the directions of the higher authority without conducting any enquiry vide impugned Memo No. DEE/0/KNUJAO/Adm/EUD.No.195 dated 27-12-2017 as being arbitrary, illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice, stigmatic, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and^{16oftheConstitution} of India and further be pleased to hold that the petitioner^isentitledto be retained and continued in service as Contract Junior Lineman with all Consequential benefits and to pass..”

¶75

Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner^and Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶76

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no

¶77

more.

¶78

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would^submitthat in compliance of the interim orders passed by this Courtⁱⁿ I.A.No.01 of 2018 dated 22.02.2018, the individual was reinstated into service. Now the petitioner is no more, the Court may pass appropriate^{ordersinthismatter.}

¶79

In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would^{submitthatwhen} the interim orders are in force, the impugned order^{wouldnotbeinexistence.} Now that the petitioner is no more, the respondent-authorities cannot take any

¶80

¶81

action. Learned Counsel would further submit that making^{theinterimorderas} absolute, the petition may be disposed of.

¶82

For ready reference, it is beneficial to extract the interim order passed by this Court dated 22.02.2018 which is as hereunder:

¶83

“The impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner though preceded by a show cause notice to which the petitioner^submitted explanation contains no reasons why the explanation of the petitioner was not accepted. It is settled law that giving of reasons is a part of the principle of natural justice and the same are totally^absentInthe present case and the impugned order shocks the conscience^ofthe Court. So, prime facie, the impugned order cannot be^sustained. In these circumstances, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for.

¶84

In the light of the interim order passed by this Court, as rightly put by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order prime facie is not sustainable. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Legal Representatives of the petitioner are entitled to get any benefits regarding the employment of the petitioner. No order^astocosts.

¶85

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶86

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR jr ^ SECTION OFFICER

¶87

//TRUE COPY//

¶88

To,

¶89