Allowed

M Venkata Swamy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Sept 2024WP/5662/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination as a security guard and non-reinstatement post-bail acquisition. Court held guidelines barred removal from outsourced service to APCOS without intimation. Oral termination violated natural justice. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned oral termination dated 06.07.2020 set aside. Petitioner reinstated. Matter remanded for fresh reasoned orders within eight weeks.

M Venkata Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5662 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

M Venkata Swamy, S/o. Late M. Pedda Pakeerappa, Aged^40years, R/o. D.No.3/65-8-2, Krishnapuram, Tadipatri, Ananthapur^District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶11

The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Marketing,^Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur District.

¶12

The Assistant Director of Marketing, O/o. Regional^{JointDirector,} Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourcing Services,^Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Managing Director, P.N.B.S, Vijayawada,^Krishna District.

¶14

The Agriculture Market Committee, Tadipatri, Rep.^{byitsSpecialGrade} Secretary, Ananthapur District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 5th respondent in straight away terminating the petitioner, on^the ground^of mere registration of criminal case and further action^{innotreinstatingthe} petitioner, inspite of acquittal of petitioner through Lok Adalat award dt 30.01.2021 and inspite of representation dt 19.06.2021, made by the petitioner and also declaring the action of respondents^{2to4innottaking} any action against 5th respondent, though the 5th respondent^acted in contravention of the orders issued by the Government in Circular Memo. ROC.No.57/APSLSA/LSW/2020 dt 15.09.2020, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, with all consequential benefits in the interest of^Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to reinstate^{thepetitioner} into service as Security Guard on the basis of acquittal of the petitioner through Lok Adalat award dt 30.01.2021 in criminal case, by considering representation dt 19.06.2021, pending disposal of the^{above writpetition.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI G V SHIVAJI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : Ms. P. SUDEEPTHI,^GPFOR SERVICES II

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI B PRAKASAM, SC^FOR AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

APHC010092822022

¶23

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

¶24

[3310]

¶25

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 5662/2022

Between:

M Venkata Swamy

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.G VSHIVAJI

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶38

B PRAKASAM (Sr SC FOR A M C )

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia,for}

¶42

the following relief:

¶43

“ to issue a writ order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureofwritofMandamus} declaring the impugned action of the S'” respondent^{instraightawayterminatingthepetitioner} on the ground of mere registration of criminal case^{andfurtheraction} in not reinstating the petitioner in spite of acquittal of petitioner through^{LokAdalatawarddt30.01.2021andinspiteof} representation dated 19.06.2021 made by the petitioner^and also declaring the action of respondents No.2 to 4 in not taking any action against^{5*"respondentthoughthe5*”respondent} acted in contravention of the orders issued by the Government in Circular Memo ROC.No.57/APSLSA/LSW/2020, dated 15.09.2020 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India^{andconsequentlydirecttherespondentsto}

¶44

¶45

reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits in the interest of Justice and pass

¶46

The grievance of the petitioner is that initially he joined in the month of August, 2002 as Security Guard in 5*^ respondent Agriculture Market Committee on outsourcing basis. While so, with a laudable object of providing security and certainty of employment to all the employees, working on outsourcing basis, the 1®* respondent Government have taken policy decision for establishing a Corporation called Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourced Services (for short “APCOS) vide G.O.Ms.No.126 dated 18.10.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 04.11.2019 for recruitment of persons on outsourcing or contract basis. In pursuance of the same, the Government have issued Policy Guidelines vide Circular Memo No.GADOISUOMISC/31/2019-SU-I, dated 20.11.2019 constituting Committees for District Level and State Level. Further, as per the above guidelines, all the outsourcing employees who are currently engaged shall be migrated to APCOS and that will act as placement agency. The Government further directed that, no employee who is engaged in outsourcing currently shall be removed and for carrying out the said purpose, the 2""' respondent directed all the Joint Directors to collect the particulars of employees working in each Agriculture Market Committee on outsourcing basis. In pursuance of the same, the case of the petitioner was also forwarded to the 4*^ respondent corporation and he has been enrolled vide ID No. 110517504 on the rolls of 4*'' respondent. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was falsely implicated

¶47

¶48

in a Criminal Case, out of an exchange of words with a neighbour, who laid a complaint under Sections 341, 323 r/w 506 IPC which was registered as CC.No.33/2021 on the file of JFCM Court, Tadipatri. Thereafter, the same was referred to Legal Service Authority in Lr.No.57/APSLSA/LSW/2020, dated 15.09.2020 and in the said Lok Adalat, the said crime was compounded and the petitioner was acquitted vide Award dated 30.01.2021. In the meanwhile. only on the ground of registration of criminal case against the petitioner, the 5**^ respondent straight away orally terminated the petitioner from service on 06.07.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation to the 5'^ respondent for continuing the petitioner in service by reinstating him as Security Guard. But till date, no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶49

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent^No.5. While denying all the allegations made in the petition inter^{aliacontendedthat} the services of the petitioner to work as security guard on outsourcing system were terminated only after receipt of the complaint^fromone R. Indra Sena Reddy, local trader of the Market Yard, Tadipatri to whom protection and services are to be provided by the Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri and also basing on the criminal case lodged against the petitioner in case No.33 of 2021 of Town Police Station, Tadipatri as per existing guidelines and conduct rules following by the Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri due to which the services of petitioner was absent and caused^{inconveniencetothe} Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri due to his criminal involvement in

¶50

¶51

Case No.33/2021 and on valid reasons, the services of the petitioner are terminated by the Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri. It is further stated that, the Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri requested the Assistant Director of Marketing, Anantapuramu to make necessary arrangement to delete the name of the petitioner from APCOS only after receipt of the information of involvement the petitioner on criminal case and complaint of R. Indra Sena Reddy licensed of the Market Yard, Tadipatri. But, after receipt of the representation of the petitioner^{dated19.06.2021} in which he stated that, the criminal case lodged against him was finalized by the Lok-adalath in their award dated 30.01.2021 and he was acquitted from the case, the Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri written a letter to the Assistant Director of Marketing, Anantapuramu who is competent Authority to re-activate ID No. of the petitioner of security guard in APCOS so as to enable the respondent No.5 to continue his services as security guard on outsourcing system through APCOS in the Market Yard, Tadipatri. As such re- activation of APCOS ID No.110517504 of the petitioner was pending with Assistant Director of Marketing, Anantapuramu who is competent authority in this regard. However, since 15.06.2021 no reply was^{receivedfromtheoffice} of the Assistant Director of Marketing, Anantapuramu relating re-activation of ID of the petitioner in APCOS. As such re-instate of^{Servicesofthepetitioner} to work as security guard on outsourcing system in^{theMarketYard,Tadipatri,} which is pending from the O/o. Assistant Director of^{Marketing,Anantapuramu}

¶52

and from activation of ID of the petitioner from APCOS. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as there are no grounds!

¶53

Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll and Sri B. Prakasam, learned Standing Counsel for AMC appearing for the respondents.

¶54

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, once the petitioner was enrolled on rolls of 4'^ Respondent Corporation, the petitioner cannot be terminated without approval from the authorities. Therefore the action of 5^^ respondent, in terminating the petitioner from service is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary and further action of 5^^ respondent in not reinstating the petitioner, inspite of acquittal in criminal case. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the present writ petition by declaring the action of 5*^ respondent in straightway terminating the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and pass appropriate orders.

¶55

Whereas, learned counsels appearing for the respondents^while denying the allegations made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the services of petitioner are terminated basing on the valid reasons such as one he was involved in Criminal Case No.33/2021 and also basing on the compliant of R.IndraSena Reddy who is one of the functionaries of the Market Yard, Tadipatri. However, after knowing the finalization of the

¶56

¶57

¶58

Criminal Case No.33/2021 and information about acquitted^from the case through Lok-Adalath award dated 30.01.2021 the Chairman, Agricultural Market Committee, Tadipatri requested the Assistant Director of Marketing, Anantapuramu through his letter No.54/2021, dated. 16.06.2021 to make necessary arrangements to re-activate the ID No. 110517504 of the petitioner in APCOS so as to enable this committee to re-instate the petitioner to Service to work as security guard on outsourcing system. As such the 5*^ respondent in this case not made any mistake from his side. However, soon after receipt of the reply from Assistant Director of Marketing, Anantapuramu, who IS competent Authority in the District, for re-activation of ID No. 110517504 of the petitioner in APCOS, the 5'^ respondent will act as per reply of Assistant Director of Marketing, Anantapuramu in the regard. Therefore, opposed for allowing the present writ petition and prayed to dismiss^thesame.

¶59

7). On hearing the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that, as per Circular Memo dated 20.11.2019, the guidelines for engaging outsourced manpower clearly states that “All the outsourced employees who are currently engaged shall be migrated to the APCOS which will act as a placement agency and No employee^who is engaged in outsourcing currently shall be removed. So, in view of the same, the respondents have no authority to remove the petitioner as he is migrated to the APCOS. It is also observed that the respondents without any prior intimation to the APCOS, they removed the name of the petitioner from the APCOS portal, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶60

¶61

8). In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai

¶62

and others regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus:

¶63

The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

¶64

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of^which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ^{Petitionhasbeen} filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental irghts or where^{therehasbeenaviolationofthe} principle of natural Justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).

¶65

9). The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here.

¶66

10). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of^thecaseandon perusing the material available on record, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in this writ petition and also inclined^{toremandbackthe} matter to the respondent authorities concerned for proper appreciation.

¶67

11). Accordingly, the impugned oral termination proceedings^dated 06.07.2020 are hereby set aside. The 5^^ respondent^{isdirectedtocontinue} the petitioner in service by reinstating him as Security Guard. Further, the

¶68

I AIR 1999 SC 22 =» MANU/SC/0664/1998

¶69

¶70

matter is remanded back to the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate fresh reasoned orders, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶71

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

¶72

13). As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER