Dr. K. Lakshmi Narayana, Vs Superintendent

DR. K. LAKSHMI NARAYANA,, S/O K. THIRU VENGALAPPA, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST, GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL (RIMS), KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL (RIMS), KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 516150

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE (VC.I) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522001

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶17

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶18

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the impugned RC. No. 4927/El/2025 dated 18.12.2025 issued by the 1st respondent as violation of ARCS and CCA rules, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of conditions imposed in appointment order, apart from violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice….”

¶19

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

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that he holds M.Sc., M.Phil., and Ph.D. degrees in Psychology and has been serving as a Clinical Psychologist since 2018. Pursuant to a notification issued by the 1st respondent, he was selected and appointed as Child Psychologist vide proceedings dated 04.01.2022. It is submitted that a patient applied for a disability certificate through Mee-Seva, and upon due examination, the competent authority, namely the Psychiatrist, issued and uploaded the certificate on 08.11.2022. The petitioner’s role was limited to the assessment process and he had no authority to issue the certificate. However, based on a subsequent telephonic complaint alleging demand of bribe, which is baseless and unrelated to the petitioner, the Anti-Corruption Bureau

¶21

initiated proceedings, even though the alleged phone number did not belong to the petitioner and the certificate had already been issued prior to the complaint. It is further contended that, solely relying on the ACB report and without conducting any enquiry or issuing a charge memo as mandated under the APCS (CCA) Rules, the 2^nd respondent directed the removal of the petitioner, which was mechanically implemented by the 1st respondent, terminating his services with effect from 18.12.2025. The said action is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

¶22

As per Clause 4 of the conditions of appointment dated 04.01.2022, the petitioner is subject to disciplinary control under the CCA Rules, and termination of a contract employee requires one month’s notice. However, in the present case, without conducting any enquiry, without furnishing articles of charges, and without issuing the mandatory one month’s notice as stipulated under Clause 4 of the appointment order, the respondents have straightaway removed the petitioner from service vide impugned order dated 18.12.2025.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others¹ v. B. Brijesh Kumar and others and Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others² , wherein it has been held that even contract or outsourcing employees are entitled to an enquiry when their services

¶24

1 2024 Live Law (sc) 628

¶25

2 2024 Live Law (SC) 604

¶26

are terminated on stigmatic grounds. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that where the order of termination casts a stigma or is founded on allegations of misconduct, such termination cannot be effected without conducting a regular enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity to the employee, as such an order would adversely affect the future prospects of the employee.

¶27

Further reliance is placed on the judgment in Vijayakumaran C.P.V

¶28

vs. Central University of Kerala and others, wherein it has been held that where the conditions of appointment stipulate affording reasonable opportunity before termination, the same must be strictly followed. In the present case, Clause 4 of the appointment order clearly stipulates adherence to the CCA Rules and issuance of one month’s notice, but no such procedure has been followed.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that, based on the material furnished by the ACB authorities, the 2^nd respondent directed the 1^st respondent to take action, and accordingly the impugned order was passed. However, on perusal of the counter affidavit, it is evident that there is no disclosure of issuance of any notice to the petitioner or conduct of any enquiry as required under the CCA Rules before passing the impugned order. It is also apparent that the termination is solely based on the recommendation of the ACB authorities,

¶30

thereby rendering the order stigmatic in nature and violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶31

Considering the above submissions, the material on record, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the applicable service rules. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 and the matter is remanded to the 1^st respondent to proceed in accordance with Clause 4 of the appointment order and the relevant rules. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

JUSTICE D RAMESH

17.02.2026 klk

69

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 35897/2025