Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Sarojini vs The State Of Ap on 21 November, 2024
APHC010500912024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 26408/2024
Between:
1. D SAROJINI, W/O.D.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, OCC FIELD ASSISTANT, R/O.M.KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE,
GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, , RURAL DEVELOPMENT/STATE
PROGRAMME COORDINATOR OF MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL
RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS),
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY (DWMA), NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT ERSTWHILE
KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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
Page 2 of 4
in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders in
Rc.No.139/HRM/FA/2023 dt.18.10.2024 by the 3rd respondent in terminating
the petitioner services as Field Assistant in Village, Gospadu Mandal, Kurnool
DistrictM. Krishnapuram without considering the explanation submitted by the
petitioner and by way of unreasoned cryptic orders, as illegal, arbitrary
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently set-aside the aforesaid impugned orders of the 3rd respondent
and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 to
direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Field Assistant in
M.Krishnapuram Village, Gospadu Mandal, Kurnool District by suspending
the order in Rc.No. 139/HRM/FA/2023 dt. 18.10.2024 by the 3rd respondent
and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES IV
The Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri K.Ratangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 & 3.
2. A show cause notice vide Rc.No.139/HRM/MEMO/2023 dated
08.10.2024 (Ex.P2) was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to submit an
explanation and also to attend inquiry personally on 14.10.2024. The
petitioner submitted her explanation on 14.10.2024. By the proceedings
impugned vide Rc.No.139/HRM/FA/2023 dated 18.10.2024 (Ex.P1), the
services of the petitioner as Field Assistant, were terminated.
3. A perusal of the proceedings impugned does not indicate the
consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, except
mentioning that the explanation is not satisfactory. Time and again, it has
been reiterated that the authority passing any order shall invariably assign
reasons. Reasons are heart and soul of every order.
4. In M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan &
Others1 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must
record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers.
5. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works
Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers2 the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is
essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether
disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing.
6. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai3 the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the
same it becomes lifeless.
7. In Board of Trustees of Martyrs Memorial Trust and Another Vs.
Union of India and others4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"22. Brevity in judgment writing has not lost its virtue. All long judgments or
orders are not great nor brief orders are always bad. What is required of any
judicial decision is due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused
(2010) 9 SCC 496
(2010) 4 SCC 785
(2008) 15 SCC 711
(2012) 10 SCC 734
consideration. A slipshod consideration or cryptic order or decision without due
reflection on the issues raised in a matter may render such decision
unsustainable. Hasty adjudication must be avoided. Each and every matter that
comes to the court must be examined with the seriousness it deserves."
9. A perusal of Ex.P1, which runs into four pages, except mentioning that
the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, no reasons
were recorded for terminating the services of the petitioner as Field Assistant.
The order impugned does not even indicate considering the petitioner's
explanation dated 14.10.2024.
10. Thus, it is apparent, that the authority neither considered the
explanation nor passed a reasoned order. Given the discussion, the order
impugned is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. The impugned proceedings
vide Rc.No.139/HRM/FA/2023 dated 18.10.2024 (Ex.P.1) are set aside. The
matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent. The learned 3rd respondent shall
consider the objections objectively and, if necessary, afford an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. The said exercise shall
be completed within three (3) weeks from receipt of a copy of this order. No
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
PVD
