ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri Nayakw adi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri A.Yadava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows : “......to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the impugned orders issued by the 4 th respondent in Lr. No. E1/1284/TSEWIDC/2017 dated 09.12.2020 wherein disengaging petitioner services as Site Engineer SSA TSEWIDC Nalgonda Division w.e.f 05.12.2020 on the ground that he was involved in a ACB Case without conducting enquiry and without giving reasonable opportunity and consequential orders passed by the 1 st respondent vide Memo No. 09/SE VIG/A1/2021 dated 31.7.2023 rejecting petitioner appeal as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and set aside the same with a consequential direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Site Engineer SSA O/o TSEWIDC, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District and pass…” 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Site Engineer on Contract basis/Outsourcing by the respondent No.2 under the Scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and posted at the respondent No.3 office, while it being so, an ACB case was registered against the petitioner and when the same was pending consideration the present impugned orders were issued by the 4 th respondent in Lr. No. E1/1284/TSEWIDC/2017, dated 09.12.2020 disengaging petitioner’s services as Site Engineer SSA TSEWIDC, Nalgonda Division w.e.f 05.12.2020, on the ground that petitioner was involved in a ACB Case without conducting enquiry, without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing illegally and the 1 st respondent passed consequential orders vide Memo No. 09/SE VIG/A1/2021, dated 31.7.2023 rejecting petitioner’s appeal mechanically without independent application of mind illegally, arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 4. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- A. The impugned proceedings, Lr.No.E1/ 1284/ TSEWI DC/ 2017, dated 09.12.2020 issued by the 4 th respondent is extracted hereunder:- “In the circumstances reported by the Executive Engineer, TSEWIDC, Nalgonda Division and DSP, ACB, Nalgonda Dist., vide reference cited above, wherein it is informed that Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, working as Site Engineer (SSA), TSEWIDC, Nalgonda Division, has been trapped by the ACB on 01.12.2020 for accepting the bribe and he was produced before the Hon’ble Court of I Addl. Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases from V Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad at 11.30 hours on 05.12.2020. In the above circumstances, it has been decided to dis-engage the services of Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, Site Engineer(SSA), TSEWIDC, Nalgonda Division w.e.f.05.12.2020. B. The impugned proceedings Memo No.09/SE.VIG/A1/2021, dated 31.07.2023 issued by the 1 st respondent is extracted hereunder:- In the reference 1 st cited, Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, Site Engineer, (who is working on Outsourcing basis), Peddavoor (Mandal), for the Executive Engineer, Telangana State Education & Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, Nalgonda Division was trapped by Anti-Corruption Bureau officials on 04.12.2020 when he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.80,000/- as bribe from the complainant Sri Kethavath Somani Naik for doing an official favour. 2. In the reference 3rd cited, the VC & MD, Telangana State Education & Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (TSEWIDC), Hyderabad had dis-engaged the Services of Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, Site Engineer (Outsourcing basis) w.e.f., 05.12.2020. 3. In the reference 4 th cited, the Director General, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Telangana State, Hyderabad has furnished the final report and recommended to prosecute the Accused Officer under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a Court of Law for the offences punishable U/s 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (As Amended in 2018). 4. In the reference 9th cited, the VC & MD, Telangana State Education & Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (TSEWIDC), Hyderabad has issued Sanction of Prosecution against Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, Site Engineer (Outsourcing basis). 5. 4. In the reference 9th cited, the VC & MD, Telangana State Education & Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (TSEWIDC), Hyderabad has issued Sanction of Prosecution against Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, Site Engineer (Outsourcing basis). 5. In the reference 6 th cited, the Accused Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, the then Site Engineer (who had Dis- engaged) has submitted a representation to Government and requested to reinstate him into service duly dropping further action against him consequent on setting aside the punishment of "Termination from service which was issued based on registration of false case which is pending Trail and till final conclusion of the Trial. 6. As the matter stood thus, in the reference 7th cited the Accused Officer Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, the then Site Engineer (who had Dis-engaged) has 6. approached the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad and the Hon'ble Court in its orders dt: 17.03.2023 in WP.No.36132 of 2022 has passed the orders and the operative portion of the orders is as follows:- "In view the submissions made by the Learned Counsel on the both sides, without going into merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on (12) weeks from the date of of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall no order as to costs." 7. The representation of Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, the then Site Engineer (who had Dis-engaged) has examined in terms of the Guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O.Rt. No. 4271, Finance (SMPC) Department, Dated: 01.11.2008, it is observed that every employee who is working either on contract basis or Outsourcing basis, shall maintain integrity, discipline and satisfactory service to the employer. Whereas, Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, Site Engineer (who had Dis- engaged) trapped by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, he was in judicial remand and his services were dis-engaged and Prosecution orders were issued against him. 8. Whereas, Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, Site Engineer (who had Dis- engaged) trapped by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, he was in judicial remand and his services were dis-engaged and Prosecution orders were issued against him. 8. The Government, after careful examination of the matter have found that the request of Sri Eslavath Swamy Naik, the then Site Engineer (who had Dis-engaged), to reinstate him into service is not having any merits for consideration and as such it is not feasible for consideration as per rules in vogue as he was trapped by the Anti- Corruption Bureau and Prosecution orders were also issued against him. Thus, the representation dt: 29.04.2022 of Sri Eslavath Sw amy Naik, the then Site Engineer (who had Dis-engaged) is hereby rejected. C. The order of this Court, dated 17.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.36132 of 2022 and in particular Para Nos. 3 to 5 are extracted hereunder:- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Site Engineer on contract basis/outsourcing by the respondent No.2 under the scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and posted at the respondent No.3 office. While it being so, an ACB case was registered against the petitioner and the same is pending for further consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has aggrieved by the orders issued in Lr.No.E/1284/TSEWIDC/2017, dated 09.12.2020 by the respondent No.4 dis-engaging the petitioner from the services of the petitioner as Site Engineer (SSA) at TSEWIDC, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District. The petitioner has filed an appeal dated 29.04.2022 to the respondent No.1 and the same is pending for consideration. 5. In view the submissions made by the Learned Counsel on the both sides, without going into merits of the case, this Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 29.04.2022, w ithin tw elve (12) w eeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs 5. There shall be no order as to costs 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner w as appointed to the post of Site Engineer on contract basis/ outsourcing by the respondent No.2 under the scheme of Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and posted at the 3 rd respondent’s office in the year 2010 and the petitioner completed 10 years of service in the department to the satisfaction of all the higher Authorities and w hile so vide proceedings Lr.No.E1/ 1284/ TSEWI DC/ 2017, dated 09.12.2020 of the 4 th respondent, the services of the petitioner w ere terminated unilaterally w .e.f. 05.12.2020, on the ground that the petitioner had been trapped by the ACB on 04.12.2020 for accepting the bribe and he w as 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 05.12.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1 st respondent vide petitioner’s representation/Appeal, dated 29.04.2022 to the 1 st respondent herein and the petitioner also approached the Court by filing W.P.No. 36132 of 2022, the said writ petition w as disposed of vide its order, dated 17.03.2023 directing the respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 29.04.2022 within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the appellate Authority i.e., 1 st respondent did not give reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner prior to passing impugned order, dated 31.07.2023 in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner aggrieved against the unilateral termination of petitioner’s service vide proceedings, dated Lr.No.E1/ 1284/ TSEWI DC/ 2017, dated 09.12.2020 of the 4 th respondent herein. 7. A bare perusal of the record also indicates that no opportunity of personal hearing had been provided to the petitioner to put-forth petitioner’s case before the Appellate Authority and the same is not disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 th respondent and also learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 w ho fairly submits that the petitioner w as not heard prior to passing impugned proceedings, dated 31.07.2023 issued by the 1 st respondent. 8. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the matter could be remitted to the 1 st respondent for reconsideration of the appeal, dated 29.04.2022 preferred by the petitioner before the 1 st respondent, aggrieved against the orders of the 4 th respondent, dated 09.12.2020, so that the said appeal could be heard and decided on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in accordance to law . 9. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 th respondent and also learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 do not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 10. This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on record that the 1 st respondent did not indicate any reasons in the impugned orders passed by the 1 st respondent dated 31.07.2023 who, being an Appellate Authority had the bounden duty to apply its mind independently and decide the Appeal on merits in accordance to Law in conformity with principles of natural justice and pass a reasoned speaking order w hich the 1 st respondent failed to do and therefore this Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for. 11. Few Judgments of the Apex Court on the point of recording of reasons. a) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2001) 5 SCC 664 in Tandon Brothers Vs. State of West Bengal & Others at para 34 observed as under : “Governmental action must be based on utmost good faith, belief and ought to be supported with reason on the basis of the State of Law – if the action is otherwise or runs counter to the same the action cannot be ascribed to be malafide and it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to countenance such action and set the same aside for the purpose of equity, good conscience and justice. Justice of the situation demands action clothed with bonafide reason and necessities of the situation in accordance with the law.” b) The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others at para 47 observed as under : Para 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only 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 judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial 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 lifeblood of judicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. c) The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in (1951) SCC 1088 observed as under : “We are clear that the public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the Officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting’s 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 I ndia, Late Justice Y.V. Chandrachud in judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India held that law 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 judicial scrutiny. e) The Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle, AIR 2009 Supplement SC 561 observed as under : “Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless”. f) In Alexander Machinery (Dudley Limited) Vs. Crabtree reported in (1974) ICR 120 (NIRC) it w as observed “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. f) In Alexander Machinery (Dudley Limited) Vs. Crabtree reported in (1974) ICR 120 (NIRC) it w as observed “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “ I nscrutable face of the sphinx” it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their Appellate function or exercise the pow er of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision.” g) The Apex Court in judgment reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732 in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others at para 41 observed as under : “Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion, it introduces clarity in an order and w ithout the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable particularly w hen the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum” . 12. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 th respondent and also learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. c) The fact as borne on record that the impugned proceedings, Lr.No.E1/ 1284/ TSEWI DC/ 2017, dated 09.12.2020 passed by the 4 th respondent had admittedly been w ithout issuing notice to the petitioner. c) The fact as borne on record that the impugned proceedings, Lr.No.E1/ 1284/ TSEWI DC/ 2017, dated 09.12.2020 passed by the 4 th respondent had admittedly been w ithout issuing notice to the petitioner. d) The fact as borne on record that the petitioner w as not heard and provided w ith reasonable opportunity of personal hearing before the 1 st respondent prior to passing impugned proceedings Memo No.09/ SE.VI G/ A1/ 2021, dated 31.07.2023, e) The earlier orders of this Court in favour of the petitioner, dated 17.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.36132 of 2022 (referred to and extracted above), f) The fact that the services of the petitioner had been discontinued by the 4 th respondent vide orders dated 29.04.2022 of the 4 th respondent unilaterally w ithout issuing notice to the petitioner, w ithout follow ing due process of law and the fact as borne on record that petitioner had no opportunity before the Appellate Authority i.e., 1 st respondent herein, as w ell to put forth petitioner’s case, g) The view of the Apex Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above) i) (2001) 5 SCC 664 ii) (2010) 9 SCC 496 iii) (1951) SCC 1088 iv) (1978) 1 SCC 248 v) AIR 2009 Supplement SC 561 Vi) (1974) I CR 120 (NI RC) vii) (2010) 3 SCC 732 The Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings, Memo No.09/SE.VI G/A1/2021, dated 31.07.2023 passed by the 1 st respondent is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the 1 st respondent to reconsider the appeal preferred by the petitioner, dated 29.04.2022 aggrieved against the orders of termination issued to the petitioner, vide proceedings Lr.No.E1/ 1284/ TSEWI DC/ 2017 dated 09.12.2020 by the 4 th 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 the appeal, dated 24.09.2022 preferred by the petitioner before the 1 st respondent herein to the petitioner. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.