(under orders of terminatiJn i#rurviE;i ilo 'E"tlti'" v. '1 . State of Telangana

Heard Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh' learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner' learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos'l to 3 and Sri A'Yadava Reddy' learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4' 2 r oraver as follows: o h d h c u e tn t e "' ". . . . ..to issue a Writ Order or direction of Writ of Mandamus particuf aiiy one in the .nature declare the impugne" ;;;; issued bv-th.e-4th r"#"0".. i" No' EIILIB /TSEWIDC/2o17 a.t""i 0g.i2.2020 wherein disengaging petitioner services as Site Engineer SSA TSEWIDC Nalgonda i,.".r-os.ri'2020 on the sround that. he ;il;; ;;;'il;"];;J in a ACB case without conductins H;, i; ; ; J ;itn out g ivi ns *: ::l:.? r" :,oo:*' ^ 'fX und consequential orders oasseo oy Lr rc ."rponJ"nt vide Memo No' 09/SE vlcl\Ll2o2l i"ut[o Jr.z.z023 reiecting petitioner :pq"-1 ?: irbitrary ano unconstitutional an-d rn il;;;, violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of aside the same with a consequential i"Ji" ""Jt"t iir".,ion-,o respondents to reinstate the p-etitioner iniJ'tettice as Site Ensineer SSA o/o,T:!y1PC' Ntalqonda Division, Nalgonda District ano pass ' - r 2 wt, t5888 2023

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the lletitioner was appoinl:ed as Site Engineer on Contract basis/r)utsourcing by the res;rondent No.2 under the Scheme of Sarv,a Siksha Abhiyar^ anr posted at the respondent No.i] office, whire it belng stt, a r ACB case was registered against the 1)etitioner and wh,:n the same was pending consideral:ion the present impugnetd orders were issued by the 4th respc,ndent ir Lr. No. E7/1284/TS|_WIDC/20t7, dated Og.I2.2O2O disr,ngaging petitionerr's s ervices as Site Engineer SSA TSE\,A/IDC, J\Jalgonda Division w.e,f 05.12.2020, on the ground tha: petitioner was involved in a ACB Case without conducting enquiry, without giving re asonable opportunity of hearing illeg,ally ano the 1sr respondent passed consequential orders vide Memo Nc,. 09/SE VIG/A7/2:021, dated 31.7.2023 rejecting petitioner,s appeat mechanically without independent application of minrl illegaily, arbitrarily ard in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constituti,ln of india. Aggrieved by the said action of the responderrts, the petitioner approached this rlourt b,i filing this Writ petit on.

4.P R s D HE E RD 3 wP 2s888-2023 DToce d nq d 9 t 2 2 L .N o.E tl L284l b h A The im u c 2 L7 T E I n e r r u d r "ln the circumstances reported by the -Executive Enqineer, TSEWIDC, trtalgonia Division and DSP' ACB' cited above' wherein it is '-;i;;;;J o',st., vioe '"r"itnie l;?;il;; inJi'srj itru'utn s*utnv Naik' workins as site r;;i;;;; issnj, rsewtoC' Natsonou^ ?i"l'lo^1'^I"s ;,Hffi d;1il; AcB o;-of ii'zozo ror acceptins the of I bribe and he was p'oouttJ O"fore the Hon'ble Addl. Special luOge ror'iii a-nCe cases from v Addl' H.i ilil; ciiv ciuir co"t ut Hvderabad at 11'30 hours on 05.t2.2020' b e ea o e s servl es of SriEslavath n Int d s- n aqet ecl ded d s s a Nal onda Di vrs on w. e.f.o5.1 .2o2 s WID -Court n t r e s M B N o.O9l SE VIGI 1 2 2 a d 31.0 .2o23i ss ed bv h s e t ''inanoar), ror e h r 1tt ln the reference l't cited, Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik' Site Enqineer, (who is *oifing on outsourcing- basis)' -the Executive- Ensineer' ;#;;;r Telanqana State Education & Welfare lnfrastructure ;=J;'il;".; corporation' Nalsonda Division was ;; nnti-corrupiion Bureau, offi^cials on ;;il;' oiiiiiozo when he demanded and accepted an ;r;;;t-;a Rs.80,000/- as bribe from the complainant iiii<"inu"utn Somani Naik for doing an official favour' 2. In the reference 3rd cited, the VC & MD' Telangana iui" iau.ution & Welfare Infrastructure Development alr"p-or_alil (TSEWIDc), Hvderabad had dis-ensased n l l 4 wP:t5888_2023 '-' the Sr:rvices of Sri Eslav-ath Swamy Naik, Site Engineer (Outsrrurcing basis) w.e.f., 05.12.2620. 3. In l"he reference 4th cited, the Direct,tr General, Anti_ Corruption Bureau, Telangana State, HyOerabad has fLrrnished the final report and recommended to proser:rite the Accused Officer under Sectiort 19 of Preveltion of Corruption Act, 19BB in a Couit or, Law for th,e of'ences punishabte U/s 7 (a) of ihl-prlr,]ntion of Cc,rrufrtion Act 19BB (ns Amended'in ZO: A;. 4. In the reference 9th-cited, the VC & MD, Tr:rlangana State Education & Welfare Infrastructur e lopment Corporation (TSEWTDC), Hyderabad f,ai iisrJi :,;anction cr pro:;rlcution against Sri Eslavath Swamy N;,rik, Site En Jineer ( Outsou rcing basis). 5. In the reference 6th cited, the Accused Sri l::slavath Swamy Naik, the then Site Engineei i*n" h ad Dis- engaged) has submitted a representation to Go''/ernment and requested to reinstate t,i, i.i" service uury oropptng turther action against him consequent on set[ing aside the punishmenl of ,,fe.mlnation service which was issued based on registraUon rf false case w rich is pending Trair and tiil fi"nar conciLrsion of the Trial -Deve

6. l\s the matter stood thus, in the reference 7t h cited the Acc.lsed Officer Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, the then Site Engineer (who had Dis-engaged) has 6. apprrtached the Hon ble High Court, Hyderabad anC thei t,lon,ble Court ir its orders dt: 17.O3.2023 in Wp.No,36t32 of 2022 has passed the orders and the oper.rtive po-tion of the orde rs is as follows:- "In view the submissions made by the Learnecl C.ounsel on the both sides, without going into merits of thr,l case, this Wri : Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respond,3nt No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petil:ione:r on (12) weeks from the date of of copy of this orderr. Tlrere shall be no order as to costs. 5 wP 25888-2023 shall stand if anY, sts. " Miscellaneous applications pending' lioJ-rn"r" shall no order as to co 7. The representation of Sri Eslavath bwamy-Naik' the then Site Engineer i*n" had Dis-engaged) has :i-';;,#j" in-[J.ms or'int Guidelines issued bv the Government vioe c'o'ni' Ni' qzlt' Finance (SMPC) 'out"o' oi'lr'2ooa' it is observed that ;il'rir;;i; *oiting eith"r on c'ontract basis everv employee who '' shail maintain intesritv' discipline ;ilil;;li-oa'i', Whereas' and satisfactory "'u't" Sri Eslavath Swamy ftru*' Site Engineer (who had Dis- ensased) trapped bv th! Rnti-c6rrupt':l-.?:.t"u'' h" *u', 'in ' judicial remand and his services were dis-engaged and prosecition orders were issued against him. to the employer' - e N ve fo n t s e rC re e h m na to s e w f E t f t ti n r r ti n s r e as h e was trAD ed bv th Anti- e r t re e a to t a k th s s w P .Th r E la w t a -e e f En tn er n n t rh s a

8.7 e t t Es v is-e a e a n a in u h it is lesln voou o ru ti nB also is u d lt2 .04. 2 o22 h n h re r r r T e rd ro c w .P.N o.36132 of2 22 t o t o 2 2 and in arti ular ParaNos. 3to D s 5a extracte d hereunder: - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Site Engineer on contract 'basis/outso u rcin g by the respondent No'2 under the scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and posted at the I 6 w'P 25888 2023 rr:spcndent No.3 office. While it being so, an ACB case ,regi-stered againsr the petitioner- ;;; t;., same is p,3ndin g for further consideraiion 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits fhq! t:" petitioner has aggrieved Uy tne oiOer-s issued in Lr No.E/1284lrsEWrDC/20rz, oi#o-oi.izi)o':to oy tn" respondent No.4 dis_engaging the p.iittn!r"',.rorn tn. s€rvic:s of the petitiol"... as Site Engineei IrSe) u, rs.EWrDC, Natsonda Division, N;ts;;;; ;irtti.t. rn. peltitioner has fited an appeat aatei zg.o+.zloiz to rne resporrdent No.1 and the ,uru -li" 'p-u"ni,ing consideration.

5. In view th Counsr:l on the the c; se, this W 4reeti o aDpea tfi led b lutthir twelv t eosls. e submissions made by the Learned both side s, without goin g in to rnerits of sed cf with a s of th d rit petition is dispo th r s on e t o, 2 w eks fro t on ron 2 t e a n .receiot e of thi or er. T e ha

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner srrbmits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Site Engineer on contract basis/outsourci ng by the respondent No.2 under the scheme of S,arva Siksha Abhiyan and posted at the 3'd respondent's office in the year 2O1O and the petitioner completed 1(l years of service in the department to the satisfaction of all the higher Authorities and while so vide proceedings Lr.No.E1l1284/TSEWIDC/2Ot7, ) 7 wP 2s888 2023 dated 09.12,2O2O of the 4th respondent' the services of the petitioner were terminated unilaterally w'e'f' 05.1r2.2O2O, on the ground that the petitioner had been trapped by the ACB on O4'L2'2O2O for accepting the bribe and he was produced before the Court of I Addl' Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases i'e'' V Addl' Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad on O5'12'202O' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1"t respondent vide petitioner's representation/Appeal, dated 29'O 4'2022 to the 1't respondent herein and the petitioner also approached the Court by filing W'P'No' 36tg2 ot 2O22' the said writ petition was disposed of vide its order' dated t7.O3.2O23 directing the respondent No'l to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 29'O4'2022 within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6. petitioner submits that the appellate Authority i'e', l"t respondent did not give reasonable opportunity of 8 WP 2)888 2023 personal hearing to the petitioner prior to passing impugned order, dated 31.O7.2023 in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner aggrieved against the unilateral termination of petitioner,s service vide proceedings, dated Lr.No.E1l1284lTSEWIDC/2OL7, dated O9.1ll .2O2O of the 4th respondent herein,

7. A bare perusal of the record also indicates !XAt_11g ODDOrtunitv of oers nal hearino had bee n provlde-d_te the oetitio n rt h t-f ione r' Aooell ate A h ori ers ot bv the learned t half of .the 4th resDon d e n and also learned Assistant Goverlnment Pleader for Service s-f aDDeaflno on behalf ef--the resoond ent Nos.1 to 3 who fairlv submits that the ner was not heard prior to passrnq rm uqned dinqs dated 3L.O7.2()23 issued bv lhe-_l"t responde nt.

8. Learned coun sel appearino on behalf of the petitioner submits that the matter could be remitted to 1tt r n t tion t h l 9 wP 25888 2023 0 .20 2 e red s n a n rb or t r I t e res oond ent, datedO 9.L2. 202 o, so that hesaid aoo al co uld eh ard and deci ed on merits after Drovid inq r so abl o or nit o r o Detitio ner ina ccorda nce to law. r t L 4th res n nt an G vernmentP leader forServices- o N s,1 o de r t la e fln e If t o lear edA Ia DDEarlnqon behalf te he b n d b d u e rin o b half of he et lon r. This ou rt also takes 10 record thatth e1 "t res note oft he factasborne on t did notin dica ea nv a ns ln n d t o t 3 7 23 a A oendentlv and de n a the A oeal o merl rd nce to wtn h natu ra I iustice and Dass reaso ed soeakino o er l0 \\'1,25888 2023 which the l't es iled odo nd h refo c sth the etitioneri tifl d for e relief as Dra vedf .=ol-. 11. Ee.!4{.-.]udqments of the Aoex Court r)n the point of record in q - a) 'lfhe A pex Courtlnt he iudo ment reDorted in (2001) s s Be nqal & o T V State of West at para 34 observed as under "Ciovernmental actlon must be bilsed or utmost good faith, belief and ought to be suppor-ted witr reason on the basis of the State of Law f the action is otherw se or runs counter to the same tl-re action cannot be ascr'bed to be malafide and it would be a plain exercis,J of judicial power to countenarrce such action ancl set the same aside for the purpose of equily, good conscie'tce and justice. lustice of the situatior- d,:mands action r:lothed with bonafide reason anci neces:rities of the situation in accordance with the law." b) The Apex Court in the iudqment reporled_L! (20LO)9SC ranti Associa tes Priv ate-Lin-rled-& Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan Others at pata 47 observed as under : I ..*&:*.|& 1l wP 25888-2023 Parc 47 '. Summarising the above discussion' this Court holds: G) In India the iudicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions' if such decisions affect anYone preiudicially' (b) A quasi-iudicial authority must record reasons in suPPort of its conclusions' (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to servethewiderprincipleofjusticethatjUsticemustnot onty be done it must also appear to be done as well' (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any + possible arbitrary exercise of iudicial and quasi-judiciat or even administrative power' @) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations' O Reasons have virtuatlY become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by iudicial' quasi-judiciat and even by administrative bodies' (g) Reasons facititate the process of iudicial review by suPerior courts' (h) The ongoing iudicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifebtood of iudicial decision- making iustifying the principte that reason is the soul of justice. I f ; I I l 1 i l !{(461r"' 12 \\,P:,5888 2023 (i) Judiciat or even quasi-judicial opitlic,ns these days can be as different as the judges; ancj a,. who deliver them. Att these decisions se.ve one purpos:e which is to demonstrate by rs6562 that the relevant factors have been objectivety :onside;.ed. This is impcrtant for sustaining the litigants, faiilt in the justice tlelivery system. tthorities common (,i,) Insistence on reason is a requi,.ement for both .ludicial itccou ntability and transparency. (t(.) ff a judge or a quasi_judiciat ,tuthorit r is not candid enough about his/her decision _rna king process then it is impossible to know wheth=r tfte person dec;dinct is faithful to the doctrine of precedett or to principlt::; of incrementalism. . (l) Reasons in support of decisions m,Lst be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reta::ons or "rubber-stamp reasons,'is not to be equated with a valid deci:sion - m a ki ng p rocess. (n,) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine que non of restraint on abuse of jtrdicia,r Iowers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to ?rror:; b,Jt also mak,?s them subject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to re:cord r.:asons emaqates from the broad doctrine of fairnt)ss in deci:;ion-naking, (o) In att common taw jurisdictions judgments ptaY a vital role in setting up precedents lor the future' 13 wP 25888-2023 Therefore , for development of law' requirement of giving for the decision is of the essence and is reasonsl virtuatlY a Part of "due Process"' c) The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner rePorted in Bh ofP ti e (1951) SCC 1088 observed as under: b v o "We are clear that the public orders' publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construedinthelightofexplanationSsubsequently given by the Officer making the order of what he meant' orofwhatwasinhismind,orWhatheintendedtodo. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actingts and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself' d) Former Chief Justice of India' Late Justice Y.V. Chandrachud in judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 in Menaka Gandhi Vs' Union of India held that Iaw cannot permit any exercise of power by an executive to keep the reasons undisclosed if the only motive for doing so is to keep the reasons away from iudicial scruti nY. I t-&St t4 \\'P 2-5888 2023 e) The Apex Court in case of t lAu n aLi it d s,s le xOT r R I 2 o Su t c 61 o bserved as under : h rci rcle, "Reason is the heart beat of ev€,ry conclusion. It inr:roduces clarity in an order and without the same it beconres lifeless,, f) .tn Alexa nderM ach rneN( Dudl ev Lim ited) Vs. it was cra ree reDorted in (1 74) ICR 120 (N IR observed ) "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controver!;y in questaon and the decision or conclusion arriverd at. Reasons su bstitute by objerctivity. The emphasis it vi rtua I lv erform. their d ecisio n sphinx'' it can, by its silence, for t tm os ibl eil tef ncti n subjectivity on recording reasons is; 16s1 ,t reveals the ..Inscrutable face of ex rci ren der ow rof udi of ed crsr on." A rev ewina d v idi 9) The Apex Court in iud qment repo rted tn 2 10 3 c7 2in c rator Vi l5 wP 2s8t8 2023 rt IH s r N r k s Others at Para 41 observed as under : "Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion'itintroducesclarityirranorderand without the same' it becomes lifeless' Reasons substitute sub5ectivity by obiectivity' Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable particularly *f"n tttt order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum"' t2. la In tn o a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the nsld r case. b) The submis apPearing on standing coun resPondent Governmen behalf of th sions made bY the learned counsel behalf of the Petitioner' learned sel aPPearing on behalf of the 4th learned Assistant and also t Pleader for Services-I appearing on e resPondent Nos'1 to 3' c) The fact as borne on record that the impugned oceedings' Lr'No'E1/1284/TSEWIDCIZOITt Pr dated 09.12.2o2o passed by the 4th ,espondent had admittedly been without issuing notice to the petitioner. I l6 \\'P 25888 2023 d) Trhe fact as borne on record that the petitioner was not heard and provided with reasonabie opportunity of personal hearing ,before the 1.t respondent prior to passing impugned proceedings Memo No.og / sE.vIG/ A:L / 2027, dated 3L.O7.2023, e) The earlier orders of this Court in favour of the petitioner, dated 17.O3.2029 passed in W.P.Ncr.36132 of 2C.22 (referred to irnd extracted above), f) The fact that the servtces of heo eti had been discontinu edbvt he 4th resD on den ordersda ted 29.O4.2 o22 of the 4t unilaterallv withou tis suinq n e ition er with ut e t tio ner t vide an th fa noo ortunit before h A t,e. 1st resoondent herein, as well to Dut forth pelirtp!er-s-sa-9c, ce to. the oce sof law ioner ha ate Authori rn nr cor S) The: view of the APex Court in the ludgments (referred to and extracted above) !) rl2o01) s SCc 564 ii) (2010) 9 Scc 4e6 ' lf$I':lJ,T:;[en'i sc s 6 1 t'7 wP 2s888 2023 SNJ vi)(1974) rCR 120 (NrRC) vii) (2010) 3 scc 732 The Writ Petition is allowed. the impugned proceedings, Memo No.O9/SE'VIGlAt/ZOZL' dated 3L.O7.2OZg passed by the 1't respondent is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the 1"t respondent to reconsider the appeal preferred by the petitioner' dated 29.O4.2O22 aggrieved against the orders of termination the petitioner, vide proceedings issued to Lr.No.Ell1284lrsEwrDc/2OL7 dated o9'12',2020 bv the 4th respondent herein and reconsider the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly communicate the decision on 24.Og.2022 Preferred bY the the aPPeal, dated l"t resPondent herein to the petitioner before the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs' I / .j f, V, 18 \\'I' 25888 2023 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pend ng shz:ll stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-T'. PADMANABHA REDDY .\\ DEPIJTY REGISTRAR ST]CTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, School Education (Vigilance) iepartment, Secreta"iat Eluildings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad Project Direc:tor TSSA, Hyderabad.

2. The Cornmissioner and Director of School Education and Er-Officio,, State 3 The Disr:rict liducational Officer and Ex Officio,, District Proje:ct Office, Sarva 4 The VC and [\4anaging Director, TSEWIDC, 4th Flortr, Rajiv ',ridya Mission, Siksha l\bh iyan Nalgonda District. SCERT Conrpound, Opp. E-Gate, L B. Stadium,Hyderabad HyderaLrad. IOUTI

5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Courtforthe State,rfTelangana at 6 One CC to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH, Advocate,[OPUC] 7 One CC to SRI A YADAVA REDDY, Advocate (OPIJC) 8. Two CD Cop ies To SA BS .,: {. ! l 1 F [.r!*r-,: HIGH COURT DATED: 10to4t2O2S C.C. TO DAY ORDER WP.No.2S888 of ZO2J ..)' ii,:: ' ,, (!. 3" 12 iAt zW :1. $ i,j Cl L AI.LOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. -"1 J' b Ar ol\