ORDER Petitioner, a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, seeks a writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent, Andhra Pradesh State Minorities Commission, from proceeding, further, in furtherance of its proceedings in Lr.No.109/MC.II(1)/99-4, dated 25.5.2001 and, consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to drop the said proceedings initiated on the representation of the 2nd respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent herein was an employee in the petitioner-Society and he was terminated from service, by way of disciplinary measure, vide Proceedings No.2488-B1/97, dated 20.2.1999. The allegation against him was that he was a habitual absentee. In the disciplinary proceedings, Enquiry Officer was appointed and when the 2nd respondent attributed his absence to some personal grounds, the Enquiry Officer held him guilty. In spite of the same, no action has been taken. Still, thereafter, as there was no improvement, and, on some grounds, charge memo bearing No.2488-B1-97, dated 5.9.1998, was issued. The charge framed against the 2nd respondent was that he was unauthorizedly absent from February, 1998 to August, 1998. Dissatisfied with the explanation offered by him, enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that the charge framed against him is held proved. Thereafter, further show-cause notice was issued and his services were terminated by way of dismissal. 3. As against the order of dismissal, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors and the Board; by its decision dated 21.5.1999 confim1ed the decision of the General Manager. Thereafter, 2nd respondent made representation dated 9.3.1999 to several authorities, including the National Minorities Commission, A.P. State Legal Services Authority etc. Based on such representation, when the petitioner-Society was called upon to submit their stand, the orders of termination passed by the management of the petitioner-Society were informed to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority and also the National Minorities Commission. As no further action was taken, 2nd respondent submitted representation to the 1st respondent, A.P. State Minorities Commission on 15.5.1999. Initially, 1st respondent-Commission, vide Letter No.109/MC-II(I)/99-1, dated 2.8.1999, called for remarks on the representation filed by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent-Commission was apprised by the petitioner-Society. By letter dated 7.9.1999, the 1st respondent-Commission directed the petitioner-Society to take a lenient view by imposing minor punishment inasmuch as the charge of unauthorized absence, framed against the 1st respondent, is only for a period of two months. By letter dated 7.9.1999, the 1st respondent-Commission directed the petitioner-Society to take a lenient view by imposing minor punishment inasmuch as the charge of unauthorized absence, framed against the 1st respondent, is only for a period of two months. On receipt, of the said letter, the petitioner-Society got issued communication dated 25.10.1999 through their Counsel. Thereafter, further records were called for, from the petitioner-Society, which had accordingly submitted the same. Consequently, further proceedings, dated 25.5.2001 in Lr.No.109/MC.II (1)/99-4, which are impugned herein, are issued by the 1st respondent-Commission, to the petitioner Society, which reads as under: "You are advised to appear before the Commission as directed by the Commission at the above time and date with all the records relating to punishments imposed on other employees in the Dairy Co-operative on charges similar to those against the petitioner." 4. This writ petition is filed alleging that the 1st respondent-Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the service matters of the employees of the petitioner-Society. It is stated that such exercise of jurisdiction is beyond the scope of the A.P. State Minorities Commission Act, 1998. It is stated that, with regard to service matters, while it is open to the aggrieved parties to avail remedies either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other applicable legislation, but, the 1st respondent-Commission cannot call for the records and interfere in the matter relating to termination of service, of the employee of the petitioner-Society, as a disciplinary measure. 5. The 1st respondent-Commission has filed counter-affidavit. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner-Society, it is stated that no case is made out by the petitioner-Society to show inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Commission. While referring to the provision under Section 12(d) of the A.P. State Minorities Commission Act, 1998, it is stated that the Commission has jurisdiction to examine, whenever there is specific complaint, regarding discrimination by the person belonging to the minority community. It is further stated that in spite of the suggestion made by the Commission to take lenient view, keeping in view that the unauthorized absence of the 2nd respondent is only for a period of two months, instead of extreme penalty of termination of service, petitioner-Society, through their Counsel, reiterated the right to impose such punishment as deemed fit and proper. It is further stated that as the Commission was empowered to make enquiry on the representation filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 12(d) of the Act, it was necessary to summon the records; as such impugned proceedings were issued. 6. Heard Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 7. It is submitted by Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that as the 2nd respondent was unauthorizedly absent, as per the service records of the petitioner-Society, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, he was terminated from service. It is further submitted that on appeal filed by the 2nd respondent, the Board of the petitioner-Society confirmed the punishment imposed on the 2nd respondent; in that view of the matter, it is not open to the 1st respondent-Commission to make an enquiry on the complaint of the 2nd respondent. Learned Counsel, in support of his submissions, relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Asscn., and others v. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC 606 = 1997 (2) ALD (S.C.S.N.) 1-1. 8. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, that in view of the discrimination pleaded, it is always open to the 1st respondent-Commission to enquire on the representation filed by the 2nd respondent. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the provisions of the A.P. State Minorities Commission Act, 1998 and the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Society, referred supra. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the short question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is, when an order is passed terminating the service, of the 2nd respondent on the proven misconduct, in the petitioner-Society, which is registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, whether the Commission constituted under the A.P. State Minorities Commission Act, 1998, can examine the complaint of the 2nd respondent on the very same aspect. A reading of the preamble of the said Act would make it amply clear that the said Act is enacted to safeguard the interests of minority communities in the State and the matters connected therewith. A reading of the preamble of the said Act would make it amply clear that the said Act is enacted to safeguard the interests of minority communities in the State and the matters connected therewith. The term 'minority', as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act, means the persons who profess faith in anyone of the following religions namely Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Zorastrianism irrespective of the languages spoken by them. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution of the A.P. State Minorities Commission, which is a body corporate and Section 5 of the Act deals with composition of the Commission. Section 12 deals with the powers and functions of the Commission. As the respondents are relying on Section 12(d) of the Act, it is apposite to refer to such provision. Under Section 12(d) of the Act, the Commission is empowered to look into specific complaints regarding deprivation of rights and safeguards in the interest of the minorities. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent was in the service of the petitioner-Society. With regard to the service conditions of the Societies, they are governed by the bye-laws, special bye-laws and the rules framed under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. On the allegation of misconduct, proceedings are initiated on the 2nd respondent and based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, orders of termination are passed. Such orders are confirmed by the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Society. If the 2nd respondent is aggrieved thereof, remedies are available to him under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. When the order of tem1ination, as confirmed by the appellate authority, has become final, it is not open for scrutiny of such orders by the 1st respondent-Commission, which is constituted under the A.P. State Minorities Commission Act, 1998. When there are special legislations governing the field; under the guise of a complaint of deprivation of rights and safeguards, 2nd respondent cannot seek any modification of such orders by the 1st respondent-Commission and the 1st respondent-Commission also cannot look into such kind of complaints when the specified competent authority has passed orders basing on the findings recorded in the enquiry proceedings. Under the scheme of the A.P. State Minorities Commission Act, 1998, powers are broadly given to the 1st respondent-Commission to examine any deprivation of rights and safeguards of the minorities as defined under Section 12(d) of the Act. But, in the instant case, it is not open to the 1st respondent-Commission, constituted under the A.P. State Minorities Commission Act, 1998, to examine the correctness, illegality and proportionality of the punishment imposed by the competent authority on the employee of the petitioner-Society. When the misconduct alleged against the 2nd respondent is proved in the disciplinary proceedings, it cannot be termed as deprivation of right, within the meaning of Section 12(d) of the Act, either to entertain the complaint of the 2nd respondent or to call for any records or order attendance of the Secretary of the petitioner-Society by the 1st respondent-Commission. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that in matters relating to the service of employees, where disciplinary and appeal rules govern the field, it is not open to the 1st respondent-Commission to make an enquiry on the complaint similar to the one made by the 2nd respondent. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Society, in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Asscn's case (supra), when injunction orders were issued by the National Commission for SCs. and STs., while examining the scope of such orders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue such an order. As the powers of the National Commission for SCs. and STs., under the said Act are almost identical with that of the powers conferred on the 1st respondent-Commission and in absence of any power to meddle with the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings, against individual employees, by the competent authority of the petitioner-Society, the 1st respondent-Commission inherently lacks jurisdiction to interfere in such matters. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings, initiated on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, are totally without jurisdiction. As such, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for interdicting the 1st respondent-Commission from proceeding further in pursuance of the impugned proceedings. No order as to costs. 12. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings, initiated on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, are totally without jurisdiction. As such, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for interdicting the 1st respondent-Commission from proceeding further in pursuance of the impugned proceedings. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, WPMP No.15384 of 2001 stands closed.