K. SUBBARAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing impugned proceedings in E file No. 47711/2017-A5 dated 07-07-2017, removing the Petitioner from service, as confirmed in the Appeal by the 2nd Respondent, vide proceedings No.880114/CPR and RD/N3/2019 dated 11-1- 2 2021, as illegal, arbitrary, violativeof Article 14and 16 of Constitution of India, apart from violative of Principles of Natural Justice and also contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Srinvasulu vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation, by following earlier Judgment in A.ManjulaBashini vs. Managing Director, A.P. Women's CFC Ltd. (2009 (8) SCC, Pg. 431) and the Judgment in District Collector vs. M.L.Singh (2009) 8 SCC 480 and also the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in reported in 2018(4) ALD 590 (DB), in the case of Government of A.P. vs. N.Venkaiah and others reported in 2018(4) ALD 590(DB) Judgments, consequently set aside the impugned proceeding in E file No. 47711/2017-A5 dated 07-07-2017 and the orders issued by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings No.880114/CPR and RD/N3/2019 dated 11-01- 2021, consequently direct the Respondents to grant notional reinstatement with all back wages and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 grant interim suspension of the impugned proceedings in E file No. 4771112017-A5 on 07-07-2017, on the file of 3rd Respondent, as confirmed in in proceedings No.880114/CPR and Appeal by RD/N3/2019 dated 11-01-2021, further regularization, from the date of completion of 5 years of service, with all benefits, as per the Judgment in District Collector vs. M.L.Singh reported in (2009) 8 SCC 480, and also by directing the Respondents to release the terminal benefits of the Petitioner. Pending disposal of the Writ Petition pass the 2nd Respondent the petitioner to consider IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant leave for filing counter affidavit in W.P.No.6600 of 2021 on behalf of the respondents and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

#1. S DILIP JAYA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. GP FOR SERVICES II (AP)

#2. G SRINIVASULA REDDY (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GP SERVICES) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services -II and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GP Services.

#2. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 as Bore-well operator on NMR basis at 5th respondent Gram Panchayat. The services of the petitioners were regularized by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated

26.06.2002, with effect from 01.09.1994. However, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 12.05.2017 for removal of the petitioner from the service. The 4th respondent submitted its remarks to the 3rd respondent and requested for dropping of the proceedings by withdrawing the show cause notice. The 3rd respondent without considering the proposals of 4th respondent and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, removed the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 07.07.2017. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.No.818 of 2019. The said O.A. was disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.04.2019. No action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner simultaneously filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal. Hence filed the instant writ petition. 4

#3. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.586 of 2023. The contention in the said case was that though the petitioner was a regular employee, the procedure provided under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, was not followed before terminating the petitioner. The Division Bench, while holding the order of termination as illegal, reinstated the petitioner into service with all benefits. The said judgement of the Division Bench was approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.8756 of 2024.

#4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.936 of 2021, in a similar situation, had followed the said judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.586 of 2023 and disposed of the writ petition in terms of the said order.

#5. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.586 of 2023. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order in W.A.No.586 of 2023 to this order.

#6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Dated: 18.12.2025 ANI ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA 5 57 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6600 of 2021 Dated: 24.12.2025 ANI