Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
R.V.S. Prasad Rao vs Women Development, Child Welfare And ... on 18 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)ALD364, 2001(2)ALT144
Author: E. Dharma Rao
Bench: E. Dharma Rao
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed to declare G.O. Rt. No.403, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled, Welfare (DW) Department, dated 29-11-2000 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and pass consequential order or orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner was appointed on 1-10-1986 as Project Officer in the 2nd respondent-Corporation. On the basis of some charges, he was kept under suspension in December, 1996. Thereafter, on 24-11-1997, a preliminary enquiry was conducted. On 8-1-1998 a charge memo was issued to the petitioner directing him to submit his explanation. On 19-1-1998, the petitioner submitted his explanation and considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, Enquiry Officer was appointed on 12-2-1998 to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 10-3-1998. Thereafter, on 25-9-1999 a notice was issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation. On 27-9-1999, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed WPNo.15049 of 2000 with a prayer to reinstate him in service as he was kept under suspension for a long time, which was dismissed on 16-8-2000. Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed WANo.1087 of 2000 and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 24-10-2000. While disposing of the said writ appeal, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner herein if the enquiry is not completed within three months from the date of disposal of the writ appeal, as the petitioner was kept under suspension for a long time and that if the petitioner is not co-operating in the enquiry, the respondent is at liberty to approach the Division Bench. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Government and accordingly the Government passed the impugned G.O. based on the proposal submitted by the Managing Director through his letter dated 13-11-2000, appointing Sri V. Babu Rao, Deputy Director, Disabled Welfare, who is working as District Rehabilitation Officer, District Rehabilitation Centre, Vijayawada, Krishna District, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry against the suspended officer under Rule 20(2) of A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1991.
3. Assailing the correctness of the jurisdiction of the Government in appointing the Enquiry Officer under A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an employee of the 2nd respondent-Corporation and the Corporation is registered under Co-operative Societies Act and the service conditions of employees of the 2nd respondent-Corporation are regulated by the Bye-Laws and the A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991 issued by the Government are not adopted by the 2nd respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the Government has no jurisdiction to appoint an Enquiry Officer under A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991 to conduct enquiry against the petitioner.
5. I see some force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. When once the 2nd respondent-Corporation is registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, the Bye-Laws framed by the said society govern the service conditions of its employees. Therefore, the A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991 which are applicable to the Government servants, are not applicable to the employees of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. In the circumstances, I see no reasons to uphold the action of the Government. Accordingly, I hold that the Government has no power to issue the above-said impugned order appointing the Enquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned G.O. is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, it is open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry as per the Bye-Laws of the 2nd respondent-Corporation.