The High Court · 2025

petition under Articre 226 0fthe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High court may be pleasedtocallfortherecordsrelatingtoandconnectedwithimpugned proceedings 31 4gt2o13/A1-pts dated 3.1.2014 issUed by the quashorsetasidethesameasbeingarbitrary,illegal,opoo'"..1:.principlesof natural justice and in violation of articles 14 and 311 of the constitution of lndia and consequently declare that the applicant is entitted to be the reinstated into service with all consequential benefits including absorption on permanent basis on the analogy of the orders in favour similarly situated individuals' '*,t."^to-"-"dent CounselforthePetitioner:SRIM.BHARATHSHAH,REPRESENTING SRI D. LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES'II The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA ORDER: This writ Petition (TR) is fired chalrenging the i.mpugned terrrrination dated o3.ol.2014 issued by dents to reinstate proceedinlrs No'314g/2013/A1-pts respondent No.2, and consequenfly, to direct the r, the pefitio,er into ".*"r*,-rilffi..,,|" j.|".},". 2. Hear,C Sri M. Bharath Linga Rao, Iearned counsel Pleader for l]ervices-Il , appearing on behalf of the 3. Shah, Iearned counsel, representirrg Sri D. for the petitioner, and learned Government respondents. ;^ Learnr:d counsel fn- +r- :ounser for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed asi a panchayat -:l_. ".".:,* on contract basis, w.e.f., 13.o6.2o0s. Secretarv .,r1 ^ h+-^^1 r However, while he was continuorsr' trra-r-r- uously working as such, anticipating regularizatio, of his services on par with the individuars appointed along with himt on os.o2.2or4, respondent No.2 has communicated the impugned proceedings dated 03.01.2014, terminating the servic"" ;;. petitioner, on the alreged g'ound that the petitioher had not attended for survey on 04. ro.2013 along with the connected records. It is also stated i', the imp*gned proceedings that his performance was found unsausfactory and that despite the issuance of a shorv-cause notice, no explanatiOn was offered by him. It is submitted that there was no singte 2 .:i " PKJ "' w.P.(IR).No. 19 13 of 20 17 incident or allegation against the petitioner durfulg his tenure asPa4drayat Secretary,andthus,itis.notknownto,tlrepetitioneronwhictr.bapis, respondent No.2 arrived at such a corrclusion, resu$irrg irr,termination pf hisservices.Itisfurthersubmitteclthattheimpugnedtermrlati.onorder has been issued in gross violation of principles of netural justice'' as the alleged show-cause noucc (laLcu Lr r r I r usenoticedatedOT'lt'2'Ol3was:revglserve$onthe petitioner, sincc he was on meclical leavc from05'1-2'2O13 to QA;L2'2O13' whichwasdulysanctionedbytheconcernedauthority.Furtlrer,tlre question of the Mandal parishad Developrnent oIlicer,seryin$ another .such, *," i*p,,gned notice dated |o.I2.2o|3 also docs not arise. Ac termination order dated 03.01.2014 is arbitrary' illegal and i9 in violacion of not only the principles of natural justice but also Articles 14 and 311 of the constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed.to allow the present writ petitionerbysettingasidetheimpugnedtenninationorderwit}ta to reinstate the Petitioner into consequential direction to the respondents service with all consequential benefits'

4.Percontra,learned'GovernmentPleaderappearirrgonbehdfthe respondentssubmitsthatthepetitionerwasappointedasaPanchayat secretary on contract basis vide proceedings dated o1'OE'2003 for a fixed remuneration of Rs.2,Ooo/- per month' and was posted to Gram panchayat, Mubharapur, Kalher Mandal. Thereafter, he uras transferred / t ; I i I I I I ! I : 1 i I I I I I I 3 PI' J W.P.(IR).No. 1 9 1 3 of 20 I z and posted as Panchayat secretary at Gram panchayat, Bibipet, Kalher Mandal, emd uras also placed as in-charge panchayat Secretaqr of Gram Panchayar:, sirgapur, Kalher Mandal. It is further submitted that on 08.rr.2012, one Mr. M. Manish patel submitted his petition to the District Collector; Medak, stating that the land adjoining Chavdi (Govemment land) situated at Sirgapur Gram panchayat, was illegally occupied by one Mr. Maheshwar. In pursuance thereof, the Tahsildar, Karher Mandal, vide Ietter date<l o7-Lo.2ola, stated that on 04. 10.2013, one Mr. Larsinglr, survelror, vras requested to conduct a survey of the disputed land and to submit his report, but the petitioner, who was holding the post of in_ charge Panchayat Secretary of Sirgapur Gram panchayat, Kalher Mandal, had not attended the spot with the connectecr records, due to which, a report could not be submitted in time. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated o7.11.2013, through Registered post with Acknowledgment Due, cafling for his explanation as to why his contractuar services shall not be terminated. However, the postal Departmental had retumed the letter stating that the addressee was continuously absent from seven claye. Subsequently, on lO. 12.2O13, the Mandal parishad Development Olf,rcer has served the said show_cause notice upon the petitioner, buri no explanation was received from hirn. Therefore, since trre petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the agreernent executed .'.-.'--- " '<-::"':' PK, J 7913.of 2077 W.P$R).I[o' and dso the orde: rs in G'O'Ms' No.14B:datedt has rightlY terminated the services :of ttte tfr" ti*" of his'aPPoirltment resPondent No'2 '

06.o5.2003 writ Petition' petitioner' I{cnce, it is PraYe cl to disnriss the Present submissions made by learned counsel fol the services of ttre rrd to the tlaving reg is of the view that the

5. resPective Parties' this Court dqtgd 03to t.2OL4, petitioner *"t, terminated vide the'atlegecl $round that while rvorking as in-charge Panchay4 secl'etq.'y of Gram PanchaYat' SirgaPur, Kalher Manrlal, the petitioner has f1i19d to impugncd Proceedings ' attend tJre.sPot w Iand,. I records 'ith the connectec Chavdi (Government land) situatcd at which resulted in delayed submission of the survey the aforesaid laPse of the According to the resPondents' amounts to a breach of the terms and conclitions of agreement . , ..i,:.- Sir[aPrrr Grarn by the Petitioner orders issued in at thc time of his aPPointment ancl also vioPles fte G.O.Ms.No.148 dated 06'05'2003' and thus, the termination is warranted'

6. For better appreciation of the case on hand' this Court dee apposite to lefer to the terms and colditions for appointment of Panchayat secrelaries on contract basis, more particularly, condition No.S, issued in Anno<trre-Il of G.O.Ms.No.148, Panchayat Raj & Rural Developrnent 'rns it {Mdl.II)Department,dated06.o5.2003,whichreadsasunder: f ,/ s . LV.p.(TR).No.t9 "5) If the perfor ;l6"liff:'",TilT,eff :il:[?,L'HHH:""T;.X"T *iu u" ,"rirl"i} slTce€ are fo-un, thereof;, --d "t *v ffi ffi,rlT;::ffi:;H***: PI{, .t 13 of 2Ot7

7. From the above, it is I panchayat secretary appointed:'::::;::l:":^:. services or a :;j;,ffi::'T on hand, owing b t4e aforesa_jd lapse of the petitioner, the authorities tssued a show-caus. notice vide No.6 gs/2or3/r{5-pts. which was sent to , the: petitioner through Registered post with ectlorvredgrnent Due, cqfliry for his e4planation as to why his contractual services shall not be terminated. However, according to the petitioner, the said show-ciruse notice was never served upon rrim as he was on \ sanctioned medical leave from o5.L2.20L3 to 20. 12.2013, and reported to duty only on j21.l2.2}lg. dated oz.rL.2or3, \ \ \ 8' f\rrther, in theif counter allidavit, the respondents stated that the said show-carrse notice rvas initially returned as ,addressee absent for seven days" but thereafter, on 10. L2.2o13, it was served upon the petitioner by the Mandal Parishad Development officer. The petitioner once again contended that the said notice *as never served upon him. Hottever, as can be seen from the material on record., the petitioner has remained 6 PK,J w.P.(fR).No'' 1 9 1 3 of 20 1 7 appended his signahrre on the show-cause LO.L2.2OL3, dulY acknowledging its ,was never served wi petitioner that'he notice dated 07'11'2013' on receipt. Thus, the clail4 of the th a show-cause notice prior to his terminati.on is untenable' g.Inviewoft}reabove,thisCourttindsnoreasontointerferewiththe impuggred terrrrination order dated 03'01'2014' Therefore' the prese '^+ian nrder dated 03'0 t'Zu ft' petition is liable to be d'ismissed Irr' nt writ Aciordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed'

10. MisQellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition (TR)' shall stand No costs. SD'. M. ASSISTANT ,TTRUE COPY/ SEGTION OFFIGER One, CO to SRI D. LINGA RAO' Advocate IOPUCI GP for Services-ll' High Court for the State of Telangar-- la at

3. Tulo CD CoPies MP TJ / ,r' HIGH CIOURT DATED :1T t09t2O2S t ]iJE (: 2 5 Ftg tttlr; flt'' ;i "-J * *' RDER WP(TR).No.1913 of 2O1T DISMISS]NG THE WR]T PETITI (r WITHOUT COSTS b \