G Govardhana vs The State Of Ap & Ors.

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

The petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 13.12.1997. Later, he was promoted as School Assistant (Maths) on 14.02.2009. The petitioner herein submitted an application on 01.07.2011 for Extraordinary Leave and no orders have been passed on the said application. While so, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 19.12.2011. The said resignation was neither accepted nor rejected. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 18.06.2017. As seen from the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer was not recommended for any punishment. Later, second enquiry was conducted on 01.09.2020 and in the second enquiry, it was recommended to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement into service as School Assistant on humanitarian grounds.

Surprisingly, the impugned proceedings were issued on 07.10.2022 by imposing the penalty of removal from service under Rule 9 (ix) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) as amended in G.O.Ms.No.127, General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 15.09.2017 read with Rule 18 and 18A of the Rules.

Challenging the said proceedings dated 07.10.2022, the present Writ Petition has been filed on the ground that the respondents have removed the petitioner from the service without conducting any enquiry.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to Rule 20 of the Rules, detailed procedure is contemplated to impose punishment. Even though two enquiries were conducted on 18.06.2017 and 01.09.2020, those enquiries were not conducted as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules. The Commissioner is also recommended for reinstatement of the petitioner, through proceedings dated 04.09.2018 in Rc.No.2924/A3/2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits 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:

State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department v. and others v. K. Madhu Phani and another .

Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director and another v. B. Nandeswar Rao .

The Division Bench in both the judgments held that conducting of departmental enquiry is essential and termination without conducting enquiry is a stigmatic termination.

As the respondents have not conducted the enquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid Rules, the impugned proceedings dated 07.10.2022 are hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the authorities to conduct a fresh enquiry by following the procedure contemplated under the aforesaid Rules. However, the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement till conclusion of the enquiry. The respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service.

With the above observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.