IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions must comply with due process and natural justice, requiring a proper inquiry and reasoned orders for termination.

ORDER :

(Surepalli Nanda, J.) :

Heard Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayatraj appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Mrs R.Padma Rekha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and 4.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“to issue Writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of termination under proceedings No. DVC/874/2012 dated 21.04.2015 issued by Respondent No.4, Memo No 5327/Vig.III-A/2012-1 dt 26.03.2012 issued by Principal Secretary to the Government (PR), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Hyderabad, letter addressed by the Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3 vide letter No. 3193/CRD/249/SPM (DM)/2012 dated 03.04.2012, the action of the Respondent No 3 in deciding to terminate the service of the petitioner based on the direction under letter dated 03.04.2012 of the Respondent No.2 and order of the appellate authority under proceedings No. 340/SCRD/119/SPM(DM)/2015 dated 01.08.2015 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, set aside the same or pass order or orders as the Honorable Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.”

PERUSED THE RECORD :

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition:

a) The petitioner was working as Additional Programme Officer, Devaruppala Mandal, Warangal under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) and was appointed as the same on 12/01/2007. Subsequently, from 01/01/2011, the petitioner was transferred to Narasimhulapeta, Warangal and was working there until the termination.

b) It is respectfully submitted that due to political rivalry one Smt.Nallam Venkata Lakshmi filed a writ petition bearing W.P. No 31088/2010 inter alia seeking a direction of mandamus against the respondents therein for not completing the process of check dam work in Vavilala village and further alleging that, in the check dam work of Vavilala Gram Panchayat, there was misappropriation of money and the respondents had collected bribe.

c) Subsequently, this Court while dismissing the writ petition on 10/10/2011 held that the petitioner herein while working as the Additional Program Officer of Nellikuduru Mandal abused the official position and violated the Government Order No.27 dated 28/01/2006 and it was also recorded in the said order that the petitioner also accepted bribe of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) as per the report of the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau, and directed the Govt. to initiate appropriate action, both disciplinary and criminal against the petitioner in terms of the report of the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau.

d) However, the petitioner was neither a party nor aware of the pendency of the writ petition as well as the allegation against the petitioner which were leveled by the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau. The 2nd Respondent issued a letter to the 3rd Respondent to examine and terminate the services of the petitioner along with Sri Hari Prasad, Technical Assistant. Based on the said letter, the 3rd Respondent informed the petitioner that his services shall be terminated forthwith. However, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner earlier and terminated the service of the petitioner without following due process of law.

e) In view of the above circumstances the petitioner earlier questioned the Memo No 5327/Vig.III-A/2012-1 ated 26/03/2012 issued by Principal Secretary to the Government (PR),Govt. of AP, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Hyderabad and the letter addressed by the 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent vide letter No. 3193/CRD/249/SPM (DM)/2012 dat