APHC010603222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 60/2025 Between:

Julupalli Mahaboob Basha, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Smt.Y.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghuveer, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for 5^th respondent.

2. A show cause notice vide Rc.No.A/2022/HR/TOC/2024, dated 19.11.2024 (Ex.P3) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the explanation dated 03.12.2024 (Ex.P2). By order vide Rc.No.A/24350/HR/TERMINATION/2024, dated 19.12.2024 (Ex.P1) the petitioner’s contract was terminated permanently.

3. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without considering the petitioner’s explanation and assigning reasons, the order impugned was passed.

4. Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for the 5^th respondent would submit that against the order passed by the 3^rd respondent, an appeal would lie to the 2^nd respondent.

5. The point for consideration is:

Whether the proceedings impugned dated 19.12.2024 are sustainable for want of the reasons?

6. It is a settled principle of law that the administrative authority or quasi- judicial authority must assign reasons while passing orders. Reasons are the heart and soul of every order passed by administrative authority or quasi-

judicial authority.

7. 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. 8. 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.

9. 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.

10. A perusal of Ex.P1 order, it is running into three pages. Except for one paragraph on Page No.3, the entire order of three pages discloses the imputations and the explanation. The only consideration by the authorities is that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and the petitioner failed to submit relevant evidence hence, the charges against the petitioner are proved. The order impugned does not even indicate considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 03.12.2024 (Ex.P2).

11. 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.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.A/24350/HR/TERMINATION/2024, dated 19.12.2024 (Ex.P1) issued by 3^rd respondent are set aside. The matter is remanded to the 3^rd respondent. The learned 3^rd respondent shall consider the objections objectively and, if necessary, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. The entire exercise shall be completed within three (3) weeks from the date of 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