THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Writ Petition No.16986 of 2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY The instant Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondent No.1 in deliberately passing Termination Order vide ROC.No.111/SO/2025, dated 05.05.2025 and also the subsequent G.O.Rt.No.404, LAW (LA.LA & J-HOME-COURTS.A2) DEPARTMENT, dated 11.06.2025, issued by respondent No.2, without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and without following the due process, as illegal, arbitrary, punitive and violative of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Constitution of India; consequently, to set aside the Termination Order vide ROC.No.111/SO/2025, dated 05.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1 (for short, ‘the impugned order’) and also the subsequent G.O.Rt.No.404, LAW (LA.LA & J-HOME- COURTS.A2) DEPARTMENT, dated 11.06.2025, issued by respondent No.2; and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, viz., payment of arrears of salary and other benefits.

2. Heard Ms. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein was working as I Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Hyderabad. The petitioner stood appointed on 16.03.2024 and since then he was discharging his duties and his tenure was for a period of two years which would otherwise come to end only in March, 2026. The appointment of the petitioner has been done under Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) read with Rule 1 of the Rules framed with regard to appointment of Special Metropolitan Magistrate / Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class.

4. The petitioner’s services were terminated on charges of various complaints. However, on the basis of the so-called complaints which were referred to in the reference of the impugned order, the services of petitioner were abruptly terminated with immediate effect.

5. The said order of termination being subject to challenge in the instant Writ Petition, the primary contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned order is bad for two major reasons, viz., (i) the fact that it is in utter violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing whatsoever had been given to the petitioner; and (ii) the order of termination, since it is based on specific complaints, would be a stigmatic order for which also the petitioner was never put to show-cause nor even he was made available with the so-called complaints to know the real facts so far as petitioner’s point of contention is concerned.

6. Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on a specific query put by this Bench, fairly conceded to the facts referred to in the impugned order and contended that admittedly the services of petitioner were terminated on the basis of certain complaints and thereafter certain reports were called for from the Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. He further contended that before issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner was not issued any show-cause notice calling upon his explanation, nor was the petitioner informed about the so-called complaints, and also the report that was collected from the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad before the impugned order was passed by respondent No.1.

7. In the factual backdrop of the contentions put forth on either side, when we read the impugned order, apparently or glaringly, it is visible that the order of termin