Writ petition set aside due to violation of administrative procedures and principles of natural justice, including failure to provide reasoned orders by quasi-judicial authorities.

ORDER

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

“….to issue order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order dated 03-11-2016 passed by the 1^st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay all other retiremental benefits of the petitioner…”

2. Heard Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for the respondent No.4. Notices to respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 were served, but none represented on their behalf.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner No.1 died and consequently his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 4, vide orders, dated 10.10.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2021.

Brief facts of the case:

4. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1(deceased) was appointed as a Secretary in respondent No.5 society long back. Due to ill health of his sister-in-law, petitioner No.1 applied for Casual Leave on 05.07.2006 and 06.07.2006 and sought extension of leave on medical grounds from time to time by way of telegrams and sending letters by registered post to respondent No.5. However, his requests for leave had not acted upon by respondent No.5 authorities in view of personal ill will against the 1^st petitioner. Ultimately, when petitioner No.1 approached the 5^th respondent in the month of December 2006 to join duty, respondent No.5 refused to allow the petitioner by stating that he was suspended on 26.08.2006.

5. Further, respondent No.5 authorities also appointed an Enquiry Officer to cause enquiry and four charges were framed against petitioner No.1. In reply to the said charges, petitioner No.1 submitted an explanation by denying the charges with cogent reasons. Again, petitioner No.1 was removed from service by respondent No.5 authorities, vide orders, dated 18.02.2008. Challenging the said removal order, petitioner No.1 preferred an Appeal dated 03.05.2008 before respondent No.1 i.e., District Level Committee, in terms of Chapter V (8) of the Societies bye- laws.

6. As the said Appeal has not been disposed of, petitioner No.1, after prolonged litigation, filed W.P.No.16531 of 2009 before the common High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad. The said writ petition was disposed of through orders dated 08.02.2016, directing the 1^st respondent to pass orders on the appeal within a period of twelve (12) weeks therefrom and also by giving liberty to petitioner No.1 to raise all contentions before the 1^st respondent/appellate authority.

7. It is further stated that without adhering to the above orders dated 08.12.2016, the Chief Executive Officer of the 1^st respondent addressed a communication by passing orders dated 03.11.2016 basing on the resolution dated 29.06.2016 of the District Level Committee and asked to release the gratuity amount and P.F. amount to the 1^st petitioner

8. Aggrieved by the above mentioned orders dated 03.11.2016, petitioner No.1 filed the present writ petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary by granting all consequential benefits in his favour.

Arguments of the learned counsels:

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners summarized his arguments mainly in fivefold. Firstly, he submits that petitioner No.1 was dismissed from service by imposing major penalty