B. Prabhavati Rao vs Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society

The petitioner is a permanent employee of the Zilla Praja Parishad, Guntur. Her services were lent to the first respondent. A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society by an order dated 20th October, 1983 for appointment temporarily as Principal, A.P. Residential School for Girls, Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. Her lien still continues in the Guntur Zilla Praja Parishad; she has not been absorbed into the service of the first respondent-society. By an order dated 6th May, 1989, the second respondent herein, Vice-Chairman of the Society, placed the petitioner :

"under suspension in the public interest under Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society Discipline and Appeal Rules and Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules pending detailed enquiry and disciplinary action".

A reading of the impugned order shows that the charges levelled against the petitioner are all very trivial in nature. Challenging the validity of the order she filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the said order and quash the same.

In the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the rules of the Society do not govern the petitioner. It has to be seen whether Rule 17 of the C.C.A. Rules empowers the Society to suspend the petitioner. Rule 17(3) which is relevant reads :

"Where the services of a member of a service are lent to a Company or corporation or an authority subordinate to the State Government (hereinafter referred to in this rule as the "borrowing authority") such borrowing authority may, subject to such specific conditions or limitations, if any, that may be made in the terms of deputation, suspend the member pending enquiry or impose on him the penalty specified in clauses (i) to (iii) and (v) of Rule 8."

The contention of Sri Balakrishna Murthy is that the Society not being a company or corporation or an authority subordinate to State Government, has no power to invoke Rule 17(3) for the purpose of suspending the petitioner.

The learned Government Pleader argues that the Society is subordinate to the State Government in that it is fully financed by the State Government and is bound to comply with the directions issued by the Government from time to time.

The society was registered under the Societies Registration Act. It receives funds from the Central and State Governments. The Hon''ble Minister for Education is the Chairman and the total number of members is 14 and they include high officials like Secretaries to Government, Education and Finance Departments and Director of Higher Education and Chief Engineer (R&B) etc. Paragraph 4 of the Memorandum of Association on which considerable reliance is placed by the learned Government Pleader reads as follows :

"The Government of Andhra Pradesh may, from time to time, appoint one or more persons to review the work and progress of the Society and to hold inquiries into the affairs of the Society and either suo motu or on report made, give directions to the Society in regard to any matter in such manner as they may think fit for the furtherance of the objects of the objects of the Society and for ensuring its proper and efficient functioning and the Society shall be bound to comply with any such directions."

The Society has its own legal personality. Receiving of funds from the State Government and the obligation to comply with the directions issued by the State Government, in my view, are not factors which go to establish that the Society is :

"an authority subordinate to the State Government".

It is not a company nor is it a Corporation. It is no doubt an "authority" but it is not an "authority subordinate to the State Government". The concept of subordination in the context of Rule 17(3) clearly implies an authority in the lower rungs of the official hierarchy. It cannot be predicated that a body headed by the Hon''ble Minister for Education is an authority subordinate to the State Government. Importing of the concept of subordination into the functioning of such an authority, in my view, would be unrealistic. For several purposes under the Business Rules issued under Article 166 of the Constitution by the Governor, the Minister practically is the Government. To say that in his capacity as Chairman of the respondent-society he is subordinate to himself sounds rather absurd. The State services are divided into State Services and Subordinate Services. There is further sub-classification among State Services like Revenue Service, Judicial Service, Commercial Taxes Service etc. Likewise there are several subordinate services, the list of which is found in the Schedule to the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Part-I. In a case where the services of a member of such a Service are lent to another Service, it can be said that the latter is an authority subordinate to the State Government within the meaning of Rule 17(3) of the C.C.A. Rules. This example is only illustrative but not exhaustive. Likewise if the services of a member of service are lent to a company or corporation the latter will get power under Rule 17(3) to place the member under suspension. As the respondent-society is not an authority subordinate to the State Government within the meaning of Rule 17(3) of the C.C.A. Rules the order passed by the second respondent is clearly without jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6th May, 1989 is Rc. No. 62/A1(2)/87 is quashed. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 250/-