The High Court · 2025

t ...RESPONDENTS Petition ,nd"r. on,"," 226 ot theconstitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased this Hono_rable court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to deilare the action of the Respondents in not permitting the petitioner to discharge his duties as Field Assistant and suspending him from service, through paper publication without communicating any orders as highly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia and also violation I I i I i I i I i I of Principles of Naturat Justice and consequenfly, direct the Respondents to forthwith' rr:instate the Petitioner into the duty and permit him to discharge his duties as Fierd Assistant, with ail service and monetary benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2A2S Petiti.n under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affida'it fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased this Hon'ble court may be pteased to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner int, the duty, forthwith and permit him to discharge his duties as Fierd Assistant, by considering his representations and to pass any such order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. pending disposal of the above writ petition. counser for the petitioner: sRr pooDATTu counser forthe Respondent No 1: sMT R. counser for thr: Respondents No 2 to 5: Gp FoR 'ADMA AMARENDER REKHA, s.c. FoR MpDo - , 'ERVT.ES The Court mad,e the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT No 84 c) RDE R: This writ petition is filed seeking the following rerief: "'..to issue qn appropriqte writ, ord.er or directton more particurarrg one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decrqre the action of the Respondents in not permitting tlw petitioner to diicharge his duties as Field Assrstont and. suspending hti from seruice, tlwough paper pubtication withoit "o^iuntcating ang orders as highrg iilegar, unjust, arbitrary and. uioratiue of Article" !4 a.nd" 16 of tLte constitufi; of India and. also uiolation of princtptes of Naturar Justice and. consequentlg, direct the Respond.ents to forthuith, reinstate the petitioner tnto the d.uty and. permit him to discharge hrs duties as Fietd. Assistant, with on seruice and monetary beneftts and. topass... ,, 2- Heard sri poodatt, Amarender, rearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt R. Padma Rekha, learned counser appearing for respondent No.1 learned Government pleader for services - tI appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5. with their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. "ig

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Fietd Assistant on 12.02.2007 pursuant to the orders of the Mandar parishad 2 PK,J wP_28472_2025 Development officer, Mp chiwemula and rendered. more than 18 years of service. while so, on 03.05.2024, a news article was published in Andhra Jyothi and sakshi dialy newspapers mentionlng that the petitioner has been suspended from service on the ground that he is harassing the villagers, who were errgaged in Employment Guarantee Scheme of chandupatla Village and upon their complaint, the Additional Project l)irector, DRDA informed respondent No.1 that the petitione.: has been removed from service. It is mentioned in the daily newspaper that the petitioner has been placed under suspension, however no orders of suspension were issued nor communicated to the petitioner. The action of the responderrts in not allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties from o4.o5.2o24 without any suspension order, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. It is further subriritted that respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice, dated

22.05.2024 alleging certain irregularities that the petitioner has been harassing the coolies, who were engaged in Employme,nt Guarantee Scheme, and they made a complaint against ttre petitioner which was published in the daily newspapers. The petitioner has submitted an explanation , / \ 3 PK,J wP_28472_2025 dated 24.05.2Cl24 to the said show cause notice denying the allegations in toto. Even after receipt of the said explanation, no orders have been passed by the respondents and the petitioner is not allowing to discharge his duties without any suspension order since 04.05.2024. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court.

4. l,earned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, has fairly admitted the fact that no suspension order has been issued. tt is further submitted that in view of the reports and complaints received at DRDA, the Additional DRDO was deputed to Chiwemla Mandal to conduct an enquiry into the matter. Learned counsel further submits that after conducting detailed enquiry, final proceedings will be issued within a period of four (04) weeks. !

5. Having'regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and in view of the admitted fact that there is no suspension order against the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties forthwith. However, this order does i I 4 PK.J wp_za<zz_zozs l I t not preclude tire authorities to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law, if they intend. There shall be no order as to costs. I Mir;cellaneous petitions closed. Pending, if &fly, shall stand //TRUE COPYII Sd/. P.C. SULE KHA DEVI ISTANT REG To 1 I[?r,Y"roat parishad Devetopment officer, C OFFICER Mandal, Suryapet

2. The District Rural Development Officer, S 3. The District Collector, Suryapet District. 4' The comrnissioner of Rurar Deveropment, Terangana, Hyderabad 5' uryapet, Suryapet District. 3!:r#l{5fft'r0t"ffi"r5"' Rurat Devetopment Dept., state of rerangana,

6. ONE CC tO SRI POODATTU AMARENDER, AdVOCAIE TOPUC] 7' Iy8"3ffol"1ffif"r Services-lt, High courr for the state of Tetansana at

8. ONC CC tO SI\IT R. PADMA REKHA, SC fOT MPDO TOPUC] e. Two CD C:opies U - DAN/MP t l" , / HIGH COURT DATED :'ltl10t202S ORDER WP.No.284l2 of 2O2S ') ') $l f-t:$ ?$?[ I * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT ICOSTS 1 $