P.Ram Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CHUTTUGUNTA, VIJAYAWADA.

¶13

THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶14

THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL TRADE AND MARKETING OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE ICHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SELECTION GRADE SECRETARY, ICHAPURAM, O/O. AT GORLEPADU VILLAGE, KAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

THE A P CORPORATION FOR OUTSOURCING SERVICES, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PNBS COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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

¶19

2

¶20

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring impugned action of 1st respondent In issuing impugned Memo No.AGC01-MKTG/356/Vig-II /2023, dt.08.02.2024, directing for surrendering service of petitioner and further taking action against the petitioner with stigmatic allegations and the consequential proceedings issued by 2nd respondent in proceedings NO.AGC0516021/53/2024, dt.18.02.2024 and impugned proceedings ROC.No.96/A/2023, dt.22.02.2024, issued by 4th respondent for terminating the services of the petitioner. In pursuance of which, the petitioner has been terminated with stigmatic allegations without any notice or opportunity as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from violative of principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the same with all attendant benefits and pass such other order.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

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 grant interim suspension of the impugned Memo No.AGC01-MKTG/356/Vig-II/2023, dt.08.02.2024, on the file of 1st respondent and consequential proceedings No.AGC05-16021/53/2024, dt.18.02.2024, on the file of 2^nd respondent, and proceedings vide ROC.NO.96/A/2023, dt.22.02.2024, on the file of 4^th respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned, consequently to reinstate the Petitioner into duties. Pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and pass such other order.

¶23

3

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 grant leave to the respondent No.4 to file the counter affidavit in the above writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.G V SHIVAJI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.G.N.UMA RANI (STANDING COUNSEL FOR AMC)

¶30

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

4

¶33

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.10905 of 2024

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing Memo No.AGC01-MKTG/356/Vig.II/2023, dated 08.02.2024 directing for surrendering service of Petitioner and for taking action against the Petitioner with stigmatic allegations and the consequential Proceedings No.AGC05-16021/53/2024, dated 18.02.2024, issued by Respondent No.2 and the impugned Proceedings vide ROC.No.96/A/2023, dated 22.02.2024, issued by Respondent No.4 terminating the services of the Petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶37

The Petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator in the office of Respondent No.5-Agricultural Market Committee on outsourcing basis w.e.f. 01.03.2019. It is stated that while the Petitioner was working to the best of his ability, the Government had constituted the Respondent No.6-Corporation under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 vide G.O.Ms.No.126, General Administration Department, dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently, the Petitioner’s services were migrated to Respondent No.6-Corporation and he was assigned I.D.No.101342004 and the Petitioner has been peacefully discharging duties without any complaint from anybody.

¶38

5

¶39

While so, it was alleged that the Secretary of Respondent No.5Committee has resorted to misappropriation of funds of Respondent No.5-Committee and the said Secretary was issued with ChargeMemorandum vide G.O.Rt.No.127, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG-II) Department, dated 08.02.2024, in which it was reflected that the amounts drawn by the Petitioner were also said to have been misappropriated by the Secretary.

¶40

In that context, though there are no allegations against the Petitioner, the impugned Memo No.AGC01-MKTG/356/Vig.II/2023, dated 08.02.2024 was issued by Respondent No.1 directing Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to surrender the services of the Petitioner alleging misappropriation of amounts. Consequent thereto, Respondent No.4 issued the impugned proceedings vide ROC.No.96/A/2023, dated 22.02.2024 terminating the services of the Petitioner. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed on the ground that no prior notice was issued to the Petitioner and no enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order.

¶41

Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5-Committee filed Counter-Affidavit pointing out substantial misappropriations in the Respondent No.5-Committee. It is further stated that the Secretary of the Committee was placed under suspension. It is further stated that

¶42

6

¶43

the Petitioner had withdrawn the amounts of Rs.16,80,000/- based on the instructions by the Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Ichapuram and that the Petitioner did not inform the higher authorities while withdrawing the said amounts.

¶44

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No.4 also filed Counter-Affidavit seeking to sustain the impugned order.

¶45

The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is an outsourcing employee and there is no allegation of any misappropriation of amounts by the Petitioner. The only allegation raised against the Petitioner is that he did not inform the higher authorities about withdrawal of the amounts, at the instance of Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee, Ichapuram. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the impugned order was issued without conducting any enquiry and without compliance of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

¶46

Smt.G.N. Uma Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5-Committee on instructions submits that no prior notice was issued to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order and the same was passed, at the instance of Respondent No.1 vide Memo No.AGC01MKTG/356/Vig.II/2023, dated 08.02.2024.

¶47

7

¶48

Heard the respective counsels.

¶49

The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in The State of A.P, rep. by its Principal Secretary v. K. Madhu Phani and another¹ held that even the outsourcing employees are entitled to an enquiry to be conducted when their services are being terminated on stigmatic grounds. The Paragraph No.4 thereof is extracted hereunder;

¶50

“ In our opinion, even in case of an outsourced employee, he cannot be stigmatized without an enquiry and in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the elements of prima facie case , balance of convenience and irreparable injury in making the interim order absolute ”.

¶51

Therefore, as the impugned order of termination is stigmatic and has the bearing on the employment of the Petitioner, the Respondents are bound to conduct enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

¶52

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions;

¶53

(i) The impugned order vide ROC.No.96/A/2023, dated 22.02.2024, issued by Respondent No.4, terminating the services of the Petitioner is set-aside;

¶54

1 (2018) 1 ALT 125 (DB)

¶55

8

¶56

(ii) The Respondents are at liberty to take action against the Petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness;

¶57

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶58