Gadipalli Prasanthi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

GADIPALLI PRASANTHI,, D/O CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC PRINCIPAL (UNDER TERMINATION), KGBV,KARASAVALASA, SALURU MANDAL,MANYA DISTRICT. RIO PEDACHIPURUVALASA VILLAGE, ANNAMAJU GRAM PANCHAYAT, MOKASA POST, SALURU MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, AP SAMAGRA SHIKSHA, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, SAMGRA SHIKSHA, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL PROJECT COORDINATOR, AP SAMAGRA SHIKSHA, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM

¶16

2

¶17

DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the impugned Termination Order of 4th Respondent vide Rc. No. 773/A/KGBVs/SS/Manyam/2025, dated 17.04.2026 thereby terminating the Petitioners services as Principal, KGBV, Karasavalasa, Saluru Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District is without Notice and without conducting any enquiry/ inquiry without supplying any documentary evidence, and without furnishing any enquiry report and without following any procedure under law which is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violatives of Articles 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently setaside the aforementioned impugned Order of 4th Respondent and to reinstate the Petitioner into her services with full back wages, continuity of service, and consequential benefits)

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned Termination Order vide Rc. No. 773/A/KGBVs/SS/Manyam/2025 dated 17.04.2025, issued by the 4th Respondent, and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service forthwith, and pass such other interim order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice. pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.S SRINIVASA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

3

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present writ petition is filed to declare the impugned termination order of 4^th respondent vide Rc.No.773/A/KGBVs/SS/Manyam/2025, dated 17.04.2026 thereby terminating the petitioner’s services as Principal, KGBV, Karasavalasa, Saluru Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District without notice, without conducting enquiry, without supplying any documentary evidence, without furnishing any enquiry report and without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶31

The contention of the petitioner is that while working as Principal in KGBV, Karasavalasa, the petitioner’s services were terminated vide proceedings dated 17.04.2026. The said termination is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijayakumaran C.P.V. vs. Central University of Kerala and others¹ ,

¶32

1 2020 (12) SCC 426

¶33

4

¶34

wherein the Apex Court categorically held that if any termination orders of stigmatic, the respondents have to follow the procedure.

¶35

In the instant case, on perusal of the references made in the impugned order, it discloses that though the enquiry has conducted on the allegations the fact remains that after conducting enquiry no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner by supplying the enquiry report and call for explanation and no doubt the termination is based on certain allegations. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, as the respondents have not issued any notice and not supplied the enquiry report dated 19.04.2025 to the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 17.04.2025 are hereby set aside remanding the matter to the competent authority with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner and supply the enquiry report dated 19.04.2025 to the petitioner and after providing reasonable time and after receipt of explanation from the petitioner, the respondent authorities may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶36