Disposed

D C Manju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024WP/19253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged show-cause notices issued to 52 employees regarding alleged irregularities in their regularization. The High Court, while noting inherent jurisdiction ilimps, directed the respondent society to furnish necessary documents for a proper explanation and suspended service discontinuation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to apply for documents; respondent to furnish copies within two weeks; explanation due within two weeks; service discontinuation stayed.

D C Manju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER //S TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR .

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19253 OF 2024 .

¶7

Between:

¶8

D.CManju S/o D.V Chandra Sekhar, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Assistant Helper, O/o Working at Gudupalli Sectiop(KR.ECS),

¶9

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd,

¶10

Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶11

Kondum Geetha W/o N. Thyagaraju,

¶12

Aged about 33 years, Occ; Attender, O/o Working at Establishment SectiQn(KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op' Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶13

V. Lokesh S/o Venkatesh,

¶14

Aged about 29 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o At Shantipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶15

B. Velan S/o B. Babu,

¶16

Aged about 26 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Operation Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶17

G. Maheswari D/o C. Gantlappa, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Attender, O/o Kuppam Rural Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶18

C. Mahesh Reddy S/o N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Ramakuppam Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶19

K.G. Shiva Kumar S/o K. Govindarajulu,

¶20

Aged about 25 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶21

O/o Kuppam Rural (KRECS),

¶22

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶23

S. S. Naresh S/o B.V. Srinivasulu,

¶24

Aged about 20 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶25

O/o Ramakuppam Section (KRECS),

¶26

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶27

M. Arun Kumar S/o Muniraja,

¶28

Aged about 35 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶29

O/o V.Kota(KRECS),

¶30

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶31

K. Venkatesh S/o A. Krishnappa,

¶32

Aged about 27 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶33

O/o Ramakuppam Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppgm, Chittor District.

¶34

K. Prabhakar S/o P. Krishnaiah,

¶35

Aged about 32 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Rural (KRECS),

¶36

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶37

S. Purushotham S/o Srinivasulu,

¶38

Aged about 26 years, Occ: Assistant Plelper, O/o Ramakuppam Section(KRECS),

¶39

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶40

S. Muneppa S/o Seenappa,

¶41

Aged about 31 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Gudupalli Section (KRECS),

¶42

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶43

V. Vinayaka S/o Venkatesh, Aged about 22 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Gudupalli Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶44

C. Sivalingam S/o Chinnapayappa, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Gudupalli (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶45

N. Eswar S/o V. Narayanappa, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o V. Kota Section(KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶46

S. Gnanedra S/o V. Subrahmanyam, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶47

O/o Kuppam Operation Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶48

B. Keshavulu S/o Baguloorappa,

¶49

Aged about 32 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Shantipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶50

M. Murali S/o Munaswamy, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Shantipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶51

P. Gowtham S/o G.V. Thyagaraju, Aged about 20 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Shatipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶52

¶53

V. Chalapati S/o Venkatesappa,

¶54

Aged about 32 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Shantipuram Section (KRECS),

¶55

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶56

V. Manjunadh S/o B. Venkatamuni, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Shantipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd,

¶57

Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶58

N. Mohan S/o Nagaraju,

¶59

Aged about 24 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Shantipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District. . ’

¶60

V. Venkatamuni S/o V. Venkatesh, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Rural Section (KRECS),

¶61

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶62

P. Murugesh S/o Perumal,

¶63

Age4 about 36 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶64

O/o Kuppam Rural Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶65

N. Indra Praksh S/o P. Narayanappa,

¶66

Aged about 29 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Shantipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶67

Avula Anand S/o A. Chinnappa, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶68

O/o Ramakuppam Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶69

¶70

S. Krishnamurthy S/o S. Balagurrappa, Aged about 39 years, Occ; Assistant Helper, O/o Establishment, Head Office (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶71

¶72

V. Gnanendra S/o V. Venkataramappa, Aged about 24 years, Occ; Assistant Helper, O/o Establishment, Head Office (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶73

R. Jayapal S/o V. Rajappa,

¶74

Aged about 29 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Operation Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District. ‘

¶75

N. Raghunadh S/o M. Nagesh,

¶76

Aged about 19 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Rural Section (KRECS),

¶77

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶78

N. Murugesh S/o N. Subrahmnyam, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Rural Section (KRECS),

¶79

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶80

M. Ilavarsan S/o C. Manikyam,

¶81

Aged about 26 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Rural Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶82

G.R. Jagapathi babu S/o G. Ramachandra, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Rural Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶83

M.S. Lavan Kumar S/o Subrahmanyam,

¶84

Aged about 20 years, Occ; Assistant Helper O/o Ramakuppam (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd,

¶85

Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶86

M. Ravi Kumar S/o P.M Munirathnam, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Assistant Helper O/o V. Kota (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶87

Gopi Dhanasekhar S/o P.M Gopi, Aged about 21 years, Occ; Assistant Helper, O/o Establishment, Head Office (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶88

K. R. Sukumar S/o K. Raghunatha Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ; Assistant Helper, O/o Gudupalli Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶89

N. Charan Kumar S/o K. Nagaraju, Aged about 22 years, Occ; Assistant Helper, O/o Shantipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd,

¶90

Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶91

J. Tulasi Kumar S/o N. Jagadeswararao, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o V. Kota Section (KRECS),

¶92

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶93

V. Subrahmanyam S/o M. Venkatesh, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Ramakuppam Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶94

i I

¶95

S.P. Karthik S/o S. Perumal, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Gudupalli Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶96

M.S.N.S Dilip S/o M.S. Nada Subrahmanyam, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o V. Kota (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶97

K. Murugesh S/o Kannayappa, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Gudupalli Section (KRECS),

¶98

Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd^. Kuppam, Chittor District. ■

¶99

S. Umesh Chandra S/o K. Srinivasulu, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Shantipuram Section (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶100

S. Srinivasulu S/o M. Setu, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶101

O/o Ramakuppam (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶102

G. Ravi Kumar S/o B.N. Govindappa, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Assistant Helper,

¶103

O/o V. Kota (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶104

Murrpa Sirisha W/o G.Vinod, Aged 27 years, Occ:Attender, O/o Kuppam Rural Section(KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶105

¶106

¶107

R. Parthipan S/o M. Ramalingam, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Operation Seetion (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶108

M. Srikanth S/o K. Munirathnam, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Gugupalli (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶109

V. Mohan S/o B. Venkatesh, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Gudupalli (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶110

P. N. Raviteja S/o P. Nagaraju, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Assistant Helper, O/o Kuppam Rural (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District. ...Petitioners

¶111

¶112

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department; ’ Secretariat, Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Distinct.

¶113

The Special Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar^of Co- operative Societies, AP, D.No.2-16-83, Near Skylark Towers, 11* Line, Syamalanagar, Guntur-522006.

¶114

¶115

The Kuppam Rural Electric Co-operative Society Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, Kuppam-517 425, Chittoor District.

¶116

The Kuppam Rural Electric Co-operative Society Ltd, Kuppam Rep.by its Managing Director Chittoor District.

¶117

...Respondents.

¶118

f^etition 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 Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings vide^{Roc.No.324/2024} D.No.810/25 Dated;09/08/2024 on the file of the 4^^ respondent whereby issued show cause notices to the petitioners asking their explanations or otherwise proceed with the disciplinary action including termination or removal from service as illegal, arbitrary, prejudged, predetermined, against the Principals of Natural Justice and against Article14,16 &21 of the Constitution of Indie and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents continue the petitioners in the respective posts.

¶119

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶120

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings vide Roc.No.324/2024 D.No.310/25 Datecl:09.08.2024 of 4rt respondent with a specific direction to the 4rt respondent to continue the petitioners in the respective posts.

¶121

Counsel for the Petitiioner{s): SRI. HARINATH REDDY^SOMAGUTTA

¶122

Counsel toir the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES II

¶123

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: NONE APPEARED

¶124

The Court made the following: ORDER

Page 1 of 10

SRS,J Wp_192S3_2024

APHC010376082024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶130

[3331]

¶131

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶132

PRESENT

¶133

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶134

WRIT PETITION NO: 19253/2024

¶135

Between:

¶136

D C Manju and 51 others ...PETITIONER(S)

¶137

AND

¶138

The State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others. ...RESPONDENT{S)

¶139

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶140

1.HAR1NATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA

¶141

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶142

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶143

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶144

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief;

¶145

“...declaring the impugned proceedings vide Roc No.324/2024 D.No.810/25 dated 09.08.2024 on the file of the 4‘^ respondent whereby issued show cause notices to the petitioners asking their explanations or otherwise proceed with the disciplinary action including^{terminationor} removal from service as illegal, arbitrary, prejudged, predetermined, against the principles of natural justice and against Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in the respective posts and pass such other order or orders...”

Page 2 of 10

SRS,J Wp_192S3_2024

Heard Sri S.Harinathreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶150

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed temporarily (on a voucher basis) in the respondent Society. The Managing Director issued proceedings (Exs.P.2 & P.3) and appointed the petitioners as Assistant Helpers and^{AttendersonConsolidation} Pay of Rs.21,880/-. The petitioners have been"discharging^{theirdutieswithout} any remark. Petitioners’ services were regularized by proceedings No.M.D/KRECS/KPM/JAO-Adm/F.No.320/D.No.198/24, dated 28.02.2024 (Ex.P.4).

¶151

Be that as it may, show-cause notices vide Roc.No.324/2024^dated 09.08.2024 were issued to all the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to submit an explanation within 15 days. Assailing the said show-cause notices. the above writ petition is filed.

¶152

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the petitioners’ were regularized by the Managing Director as per the By-laws of the Society, the show-cause notices issued by the Managing Director after a change of Government, per se, is illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that in the show-cause notice, the^{3'^'^referenceistheJoint} Collec/tor, Chittoor/ Official Person In-charge note order dated 07.08.2024, and

Page 3 of 10

SRS.l Wp_19253_2024

the same has not been furnished to the petitioners^{toenablethemtosubmit} the explanation. Learned counsel also submitted that the efforts made by the petitioners to secure the proceedings in references^2&3went futile. He submitted that to submit a proper explanation to the show-cause notice, those documents are necessary. He also submitted that the authority premeditated the issue thus the show-cause notices are liable to be set aside. He also would submit that submitting the explanation to the show^causenotices is a futile exercise because of premeditation by the authority.

¶157

Learned Assistant Government pleader would submit that the writ petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable. He also would submit that if the petitioners require any documents, they should have made an appropriate application. He also would submit that a perusal of the show cause notices does not indicate any premeditation and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶158

The point for consideration is: Whether, the show-cause notices dated 09.08.2024 issued to the petitioners, by the Managing Director of the 4‘^ respondent Society suffer from illegality?

¶159

A show cause notice, has the solemn purpose of informing the person about the material for which a response is being sought concerning a case, which may constitute a breach, for which he is being^{directedtosubmitan} explanation. The very purpose of a show cause notice is to enable the

¶160

Page 4 of 10

¶161

SRS,J Wp_19253_2024

¶162

recipient to raise objections, if any, to the proposals made, and the concerned authority is required to address such objections which is the fundamental principle of natural justice.

¶163

Another purpose behind serving a show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the exact case set up against the individual, which one has to meet in its reply, and the proposed action,^which is intended to be taken against the individual, if the reply is unsatisfactory. The purpose of a show cause notice is to enable the noticee to meet the grounds, on which the action is proposed against him. Both conditions must^{befulfilledandmustbe} reflected in the notice itself. If the notice is vague and incomplete, it violates the principles of natural justice.

¶164

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)\ held that to fulfill the requirement of principles of natural justice, show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz., (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; and (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken.

¶165

In Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors.^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

¶166

(2014) 9 see 105 " (1980) 3 see 1 f

Page 5 of 10

SRS,J Wp_19253_2024

“It is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to^{enablethenoticeeto} answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

¶171

¶172

In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation^ofIndia

¶173

and Ors.^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:

¶174

“At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority^{concernedshould} give to the affected party a notice of the case against^himsothathe can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order traveling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction^tothat extent.”

¶175

¶176

In Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories'*, the Hon’ble Apex Court,

¶177

observed regarding maintainability of writ petition qua show cause notice as:

¶178

“31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions^beforethe authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities^{concernedabout} the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause^notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie^{establishedtobeso.} Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out”.

¶179

" (2021) 2 see 551 (2007) 13 see 270

¶180

Page 6 of 10

¶181

SRS,J Wp_19253_2024

¶182

In Shakti Me-Dor Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad® and In Union of India Vs Bajaj Tempo Ltd.® it has been held that at the stage of show-cause notice, a writ petition should not be entertained unless such show-cause notice is without jurisdiction. It was held that the contentions in the show-cause notice should be accepted as true and after the petitioner submits its reply thereto, the adjudicating authority would decide the matter. It was also held that the High Court or the Supreme Court should be approached only after exhausting the remedies provided under the statute. A similar view has also been expressed in Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs Dunlop India Ltd^.

¶183

Keeping the principles enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court intends to exercise the judicial review under Art 226^{oftheConstitutionof} India. As seen from the material available on record, admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants / Tech. Assistant temporarily (Voucher basis) on 01.07.2021. Later, the petitioners’ were appointed as Assistant Helpers on consolidated pay,^andthere after the services of the petitioners were regularized.

¶184

^2011 (2)ALD 424 ®1998(9)^CC 281 M 985(1^) ELT 22 SC

Page 7 of 10

(

SRS,J Wp_19253_2024

In the show-cause notices Ex.P.1 it was pointed out that the recruitment/regularization as the Assistant helper in the 4*'^ respondent Society was done irregularly, without following the standard due process by the then authorities. Thus, the show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to submit an explanation.

¶189

Of course, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners in the show-cause notice, it was mentioned that ‘the appointment^{isconsideredas} null and void’. It is a settled principle of law that the notice is required to be read as a whole. No meaning can be made out by separating one paragraph from another. A hyper-technical view shall not be taken by looking at part of the notice. A careful perusal of the recital in the notices, it cannot be construed that the authority premeditated the issue. In the considered opinion of this court, using the words, null and void, does not mean that the authority premeditated the issue. Unless the authority indicates, in the notice about irregularity or illegality, the petitioners may not be able to reply and meet the allegations. Thus, the language employed in the notices qua ‘appointment is null and void’, does not amount to premeditating the issue. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner may not apply to the^{factsofthiscase.}

¶190

¶191

When a show-cause notice was issued, the authority^{shouldalsofurnish} or enclose relevant material enabling the recipient to submit an appropriate explanation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the efforts made by the petitioners to secure the proceedings of PIC Meetings

¶192

Page 8 of 10

¶193

SRS,J Wp_19253_2024

¶194

vide Resolution Nos.9 & 10 and Note orders of the Chairman dated 15.12.2023 & 27.02.2024 and the Joint Collector, Chittoor/Offici^alPerson In charge note order dated 07.08.2024 went futile and without those documents, the petitioners may not be able to submit a proper explanation, the petitioners must make application to the authority to supply the required documents. However, in the case at hand, it seems, no such application^wasmade. If the petitioners make any application to furnish the documents, the concerned may furnish the documents as per the Rules enabling the petitioners to submit an explanation.

¶195

Given the discussion supra, since the writ petition is filed against the show-cause notice, though the writ petition is not maintainable, however, in the peculiar facts of this case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of learned counsel on either side at the admission stage, with the following directions:

¶196

The petitioners shall make an application to the 4 th respondent requesting the authority to furnish the^documents required enabling the petitioners to submit a proper explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; 2) If such an application is made, the 4^'^ respondent, subject to the rules and regulations, shall furnish the documents sought by the petitioners enabling them to submit a reply to^theshow- cause notice within two weeks.

Page 9 of 10

(

SRS,J Wp_19253_2024

The petitioners shall submit an explanation within^twoweeks. The Managing Director of the 4^*^ respondent Society shall consider the same objectively and, if necessary, by providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and shall pass appropriate orders.

¶201

Till a decision is taken, the authority of the 4^^ respondent shall not discontinue the petitioners from services.

¶202

Observations, if any, made in the order cannot be^construed as findings on the merits of the issue. Such observations^are made only to dispose of the writ petition.

¶203

No order as to costs.

¶204

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶205

//TRUE COPY//

¶206

deputy reg\strak SE' N OFFICER

¶207

To,

¶208

The Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department Secretariat, Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur^District

¶209

The Special Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar^ofCo operative Societies, AP, D.No.2-16-83, Near Skylark Towers, 11th Line, Syamalanagar, Guntur-522006.

¶210