Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Bolli Rajesh vs The State Of Ap on 16 July, 2026
APHC010622682022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION N
No. 37221/2022
BETWEEN:
1. BOLLI RAJESH, S/
S/o. CHANDRA, AGE 30 YEARS OCCUPATION:
OCCUPATION
SECURITY GUARD, R/
R/o. H.No.38/30-2,
2, BUDDAYAPALLI,
KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING DEPT,
A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, KADAPA
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RYTHUBAZARS,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH GUNTUR
4. BVR RYTHU BAZAR, REP. BY ITS ESTATE OFFICER, KADAPA,
YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
5. DISTRACT AGRITRADE MARKETING OFFICER, , KADAPA, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of
Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in
2
Proceedings No.78/RBZ/2022 dt.13.9.2022 terminating the services of
the petitioner as Security Guard on the ground of registration of F.I.R., in
C.No.75/2022 IN. 419, 420, 468, 471, and 120 B R/w. 34 IPC on the
ground that I signed on the document as a witness and also on the
ground of involvement in land grabbing case as illegal, arbitrary and
violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to
the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catenae of decisions and in utter
violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently declare that
the petitioner is entitled to continue in service without there being any
break in the interests of justice and to pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P V RAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. B PRAKASAM
2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The contention of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged
through outsourcing agency in the month of October, 2009 by the
Assistant Director, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Kadapa, on the
orders approved by the Joint Collector, Kadapa.
2. Though the petitioner nominated as outsourcing, engaged through
Government Corporation without replacing him frequently with providing
guarantee for continuation duly providing wages prescribed and the said
employment for all purposes got the characteristics of quasi permanent or
temporary in nature and his services cannot be liable to be dispensed
arbitrarily without following due process of law.
3. The petitioner was terminated from the services on 13.09.2022 on
the ground that an FIR registered against the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120(b) IPC r/w 34 IPC and
Section 4 of the Land Grabbing Act, vide crime No.75 of 2022. After due
investigation, the Kadapa Police filed charge sheet on the file of Principal
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa,
later the FIR was registered as C.C. No.1677 of 2022. And the said
criminal case was ended in acquittal as the witnesses turned hostile.
4. Challenging the termination of the petitioner, the present Writ
Petition is filed. The termination without following due procedure would
4
be stigmatic termination on the part of the petitioner and also stated that
the criminal case was ended in acquittal on the ground as no evidence
was placed by the prosecution against the accused and the petitioner was
5th accused in said criminal case.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
termination without an enquiry would amounts to stigmatic termination. It
is not only applicable to the permanent Government employees, it is also
equally applies to the temporary and outsourcing employees and placed
reliance on two Divisional Bench judgments, which are referred
hereunder:
1) State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal
Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department v. and others v. K. Madhu Phani and another1.
2) Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation limited,
represented by its Chairman and Managing Director and
another v. B. Nandeswar Rao2.
6. The Division Bench in both the judgments held that conducting of
departmental enquiry is essential and termination without conducting
enquiry is a stigmatic termination.
7. The respondents are filed counter affidavit stating that the
rulings/orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India doesn’t apply to this
1
2018(1) ALT 125 (D.B.)
2
2014(4) ALT 211 (D.B.)
5
case as it is clearly evident that the petitioner has been not only merely
involved but conspired with other accused persons in illegal land grabbing
case for the sake of financial benefit as found and reported by the police
officials in charge sheet of Cr.No.75 of 2022. Thus no argument will deny
the above fact and the petitioner can be exonerated or benefited by
making false arguments in the disguise of innocence.
8. After considering the arguments of both the counsel for the
petitioner and respondents, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as
outsourcing employee by respondent authorities and the petitioner was
terminated on the ground that a criminal case was registered against the
petitioner. As held in the aforesaid judgments, termination without
conducting enquiry is stigmatic termination on the part of the petitioner
and the respondents cannot terminate the services of the petitioner
without conducting any enquiry. However, the criminal case ended in
acquittal, as the witness turned hostile.
9. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated
13.09.2022. The petitioner shall not claim any employment mere setting
aside the impugned orders. The respondents are directed to conduct
enquiry as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the
date of receipt of the copy of the order. If the respondents fail to conclude
the enquiry within the stipulated period, the appointment of the petitioner
6
as outsourcing on 31.10.2009, comes into force without back wages,
without any further reference from this Court.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 16.07.2026
Harin
7
81
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P.No. 37221 of 2022
Date: 16-07-2026
Harin
