IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15148 of 2009 Between: Madala Thimmaiah S/o. Pedda Thimmaiah R/o. Narrawada Village, Duttalur Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration , A.P.Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu, Nellore District. 3 B. Venkateswara Reddy Narrawada Village, Duttaluru Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. 4 K. Ramanaiah Chowdary Village Revenue Officer, Narrawada Village, Duttaluru Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order of direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring CCLA Procds. No. V.S (4)/21/09 dt. 16-6-09 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as illegal, and arbitrary and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Panduranga Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation, wherein order dated 16-06-2009 passed by respondent No.1 has been challenged. 2. By an order dated 31-12-2008, respondent No.4 had been dismissed from service. Action was taken against respondent No.4 in pursuance of certain observations made by the Hon’ble Lokayuktha. The order of removal was challenged by respondent No.4 before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 after considering the record and hearing respondent No.4 came to the conclusion that the order of removal was against the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, he set aside the order dated 31-12-2008, whereby respondent No.4 was dismissed from service and remanded the matter back for fresh enquiry, by his order dated 16- 06-2009. The aforestated order dated 16-06-2009 has been challenged in this public interest litigation. 3. In our opinion, the impugned order is just and proper for the reason that the appellate authority came to the conclusion that principles of natural justice had been violated while passing the order of dismissal. Moreover, respondent No.4, who is alleged to have committed serious irregularities has been transferred to a different place and, therefore, he would not be having any opportunity to tamper with the record. 4. In view of the above fact, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order and, therefore, the petition is rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th July, 2009 ks