Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shiva Koti Lalitha, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 December, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.30427 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
standing counsel, Sri G.Srinivasulu Reddy, representing
Respondent Nos.5 & 6.
2. The writ petition is filed challenging inter alia the action
of Respondent No.5 in removing the petitioner from service vide
proceedings dated 14.12.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
impugned has been passed without issuing any prior notice or
conducting any enquiry. He submits that the 5th respondent
acting on the instructions of the 3rd respondent, has
straightaway passed the order of termination. He submits that
even assuming that some complaints are made against the
petitioner, the 5th respondent is required to call upon the
petitioner to submit explanation and thereafter pass
appropriate orders. He submits that the proceedings impugned
are in gross violation of principles of natural justice and on
that ground alone, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13099 of 2021, dated
17.9.2021.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits
that the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duties and further
that pursuant to several complaints received against her, the
Authorities have rightly passed the orders of termination.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for both sides and perused the material on record.
6. As seen from the impugned proceedings, no notice much
less a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before
resorting to the extreme step of termination. The order passed
by the 5th respondent, as seen from the impugned order, is not
by exercising independent discretion, but based on the
instructions of the 3rd respondent, which would indicate total
non-application of mind by the 5th respondent. The order is,
therefore, liable to be set aside on the above said grounds.
7. Further, in similar circumstances, the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.13099 of 2021 discussed the matter
elaborately and recorded categorical findings to the effect that
non-issuance of notice is fatal and order of termination is liable
to be set aside. As held by the learned Single Judge the order
impugned casts a stigma on the petitioner that she has
indulged in illegal activities. Any such order, which carries
stigma and which is passed without hearing, is liable to be set
aside.
8. It is also to be noted that the order impugned entails civil
consequences and in such circumstances, the termination of
the petitioner, without issuing show cause notice is also
unsustainable in law.
9. In view of the aforesaid conclusions and for the reasons
alike in Writ Petition No.13009 of 2021, the order impugned is
set aside.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to take the petitioner into service with immediate
effect. However, this order will not preclude the respondents
from issuing proper show cause notice to the petitioner calling
for her explanation and to take necessary action. No costs. The
miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
December 22, 2021.
Note:
Registry to annex copy of the order in
Writ Petition No.13009 of 2021 to this order.
(By order)
vasu
