Judgment : The Zilla Samakhya, Prakasam District, passed a resolution on 21.01.2006 terminating the services of the petitioner as a Community Coordinator and informed him of the same under its proceedings in Rc.No.ZS Resolution/06 of the same date. This action was confirmed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), Hyderabad, under Letter No.98/SERP/HR/PKM/2009 dated 27.07.2010. The petitioner challenges these proceedings and seeks a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as a Community Coordinator in the Velugu/Indira Kranthi Patham Project undertaken by the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Prakasam District, and the SERP. This project envisaged poor women in rural areas coming together to form ‘Self Help Groups’ (SHGs) which, in turn, would form ‘Village Organizations’. The Presidents of the Village Organizations were to form into a federation at the mandal level as a ‘Mandal Samakhya’, which was to be registered under the Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act of 1995’). The Presidents of the Mandal Samakhyas, in turn, formed a federation at the district level as a ‘Zilla Samakhya’. These Zilla Samakhyas were also independently registered under the Act of 1995. The SERP, a society registered under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350-Fasli, and a State level organization, was to oversee the implementation of this project. Community Coordinators, such as the petitioner, were to work under the control of the Mandal Samakhyas as grass-root level officers. The petitioner’s removal from service was based on the Report dated 14.11.2005 submitted by one Sri Ch.Ramesh, District Project Manager, holding that the petitioner had misappropriated Rs.3,45,000/-. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Project Director, DRDA, through proceedings dated 30.11.2005. Though these proceedings referred to charges being framed against the petitioner in the context of his being suspended as part of disciplinary action, it is an admitted fact that no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and no regular enquiry was held against him prior to the Resolution dated 21.01.2006. The petitioner thereupon submitted representation dated 06.03.2006 claiming that he was innocent and that no enquiry had been held against him. The District Collector, Prakasam District, is however stated to have opined, by order dated 21.05.2006, that the petitioner’s representation deserved no consideration. The petitioner thereupon submitted representation dated 06.03.2006 claiming that he was innocent and that no enquiry had been held against him. The District Collector, Prakasam District, is however stated to have opined, by order dated 21.05.2006, that the petitioner’s representation deserved no consideration. But, as the Indira Kranthi Patham Employees Association also submitted a representation to the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam District, ventilating the grievance of the petitioner, a re-enquiry was ordered in the matter and under proceedings dated 09.02.2009, Smt.P.John Kumari, Area Coordinator, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. She submitted enquiry report dated 27.02.2009 concluding that the ten charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved as there was no evidence against him. She pointed out that all the cheques were drawn in the names of the members of the community and not in his name and though the community members stated that the amounts drawn were given to the petitioner, there was no evidence thereof. She further recommended that the petitioner be reinstated in service. Basing on this report, the Project Director, DRDA, Ongole, addressed letter dated 13.07.2009 to the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Hyderabad, recounting the facts and stating that the file had been circulated to the District Collector, Prakasam District, with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that the Collector had ordered as follows: ‘Reinstate and thoroughly probe by ordering re-enquiry to establish specific guilt”. The Project Director, DRDA, Ongole, therefore sought a clarification from the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Hyderabad, as to whether the petitioner could be reinstated pending further enquiry in the matter. Responding thereto, the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Hyderabad, in his letter dated 14.09.2009, stated that the following points required further examination: (1) Whether the termination orders issued by the Zilla Samakhya, Prakasam, were with the knowledge of the Project Director, DRDA, Indira Kranthi Patham. (2) The gap period was for a period of 3 years 7 months and as to what was the basis for considering such a huge gap period for reinstatement. (3) The need and reasons justifying the issue of re-enquiry orders by the Project Director into the allegations levelled against the individual. (4) The action taken by the Projector Director, DRDA/Zilla Samakhya, for making good the misappropriated amount of Rs.3,45,000/- pursuant to the termination of the individual. (3) The need and reasons justifying the issue of re-enquiry orders by the Project Director into the allegations levelled against the individual. (4) The action taken by the Projector Director, DRDA/Zilla Samakhya, for making good the misappropriated amount of Rs.3,45,000/- pursuant to the termination of the individual. (5) The proposed action as per the orders of the Collector, Prakasam, to thoroughly probe by ordering re-enquiry to establish the specific guilt is also not mentioned, and (6) The details in support of all the references made by the Project Director, DRDA, in his letter dated 13.07.2009 required further verification of facts at State Project Management Unit (SPMU) for issuing a clarification as to whether the individual could be reinstated pending further enquiry in the matter. This information was directed to be sent to the SPMU by 18.09.2009. In his reply dated 06.10.2009, the Project Director, DRDA-IKP, Ongole, furnished the information sought. Thereupon, the SERP, Hyderabad, through its Additional Chief Executive Officer, stated that the information furnished by the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam, had been reviewed and it was proposed to establish the specific guilt in the first instance in the case of the reported misappropriated amount of Rs.3,45,000/-. The Project Director was advised to take further necessary action and fix up the responsibility on the concerned in this regard prior to considering the reinstatement of the petitioner. Thereupon, the Project Director, DRDA-IKP, Prakasam, addressed letter dated 23.01.2010 to the Enquiry Officer, Smt.P.John Kumari, (1) to examine the petitioner and record his deposition; (2) to fix up the responsibility on the concerned individual responsible for recovery of the misappropriated amount of Rs.3,45,000/- and submit an additional report. By her report dated Nil, received on 15.02.2010 by the Project Director, DRDA-IKP, Ongole, Smt.P.John Kumari, the Enquiry Officer, stated that upon examination, the petitioner had deposed that the complainant, Sri Ch. Ramesh, the former District Project Manager, had developed a personal grudge against him and levelled allegations against him without allowing him a chance to offer an explanation. The petitioner further deposed that the complainant had taken signatures from the group leaders that he had misappropriated amounts and complained that he had been removed from service without following the rules and regulations. The petitioner further deposed that the complainant had taken signatures from the group leaders that he had misappropriated amounts and complained that he had been removed from service without following the rules and regulations. As regards the second aspect, the Enquiry Officer stated that she had already examined the group leaders of Sathukupadi, Patchava, N.N.Kandrika and Kamepalli village organizations and that it was established that the funds were given to the self-help group members through the village organizations by way of cheques. These cheques were realized by the self-help group members from the bank and though these members said that they had given the amounts to the petitioner, there was no evidence of the same and the members alone were responsible for repayment thereof. She accordingly fixed the responsibility on the village organizations concerned for recovery of these amounts. The findings of the Enquiry Officer in her additional report were informed to the SERP, Hyderabad, by the Project Director, DRDA-IKP, Ongole, under his letter dated 25.02.2010. Strangely, the Additional Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Hyderabad, then appointed Sri Y.V.Raghunadha Reddy, State Project Manager, Community Investment Fund (CIF), SERP, as an Enquiry Officer and addressed letter dated 30.03.2010 informing him that he had been appointed to conduct an independent enquiry into the reported case of misappropriation of Rs.3.45,000/- by the petitioner. The two enquiry reports already submitted by Smt.P.John Kumari, the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Project Director, DRDA-IKP, Prakasam District, were enclosed for his reference. The terms of reference for conducting this ‘independent enquiry’ were also enclosed therewith. The Enquiry Officer was asked to conduct and complete the enquiry and submit his report within the time stipulated. The terms of reference read as under: “The Senior Enquiry Officer of SERP is required to conduct enquiry on the following: • The actual misappropriation of amounts at four Village organizations amounting to Rs.3,45,000/- by Sri B.Ramesh Babu, CC Jaragumalli Mandal, Prakasam district. • To verify all the points that are not covered in the first enquiry report and covered in the second enquiry report and vis-à-vis, from the records of DPMU/Zilla Samakhya/Jarugumalli Mandal Samakhya and the concerned Village Organizations. • To verify all the original records and files submitted by the DPMU to the Collector, Prakasam district and confirm the factual position of reported termination of the individual. • The statements given by the Village Organization members to both the Enquiry Officers. • To verify all the original records and files submitted by the DPMU to the Collector, Prakasam district and confirm the factual position of reported termination of the individual. • The statements given by the Village Organization members to both the Enquiry Officers. • To enquire into the way the 1st and 2nd enquiries were conducted by the Enquiry Officer concerned. • To verify the facts on the allegation that in the First Enquiry the Enquiry officer has taken the signatures of the Village Organization members to cast aspersions against the individual. • The enquiry shall be of independent nature. All the records, files and the information that may be required for arriving a logical conclusion in the case may be thoroughly verified. • Specific conclusions may be reported in the case by fixing the responsibility on the concerned for making good of the misappropriated amount of project funds. • The enquiry shall be completed and report shall be submitted not exceeding 30 days from the date of receipt of this appointment.” Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner by this Enquiry Officer and he was not given an opportunity to participate in the so-called enquiry proceedings. However, this Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 01.07.2010 with the following recommendations: “Recommendations: 1. Community members have agreed that they have received some money (as per the attachment), which has to be recovered by the project. 2. Community members, who are frequently involved in these type of transactions, are continuing as OB till today. The appropriate measures have to be initiated as per the byelaw of the respective VO/MS. 3. At this juncture, it may not be wise to initiate recovery processes against Sri B.Ramesh Babu as there is already a considerable delay. He need not be reinstated just because there is no documentary evidence to prove that there is his involvement in the fraud. Sri B.Ramesh Babu was a contract employee and there was no obligation whatsoever to renew his contract for following reasons: a. The circumstantial evidences point the finger at him. b. He has not initiated any further action as CC to recover the money. c. The transactions are either not recorded or destroyed. 4. The minutes books, recording the transactions pertaining the subject case, are not available with VOs and SHGs. Either these books are destroyed or not maintained at all. b. He has not initiated any further action as CC to recover the money. c. The transactions are either not recorded or destroyed. 4. The minutes books, recording the transactions pertaining the subject case, are not available with VOs and SHGs. Either these books are destroyed or not maintained at all. The CIF recoveries from the VOs in question are extremely poor. The present authorities have not bothered to audit and update the accounts. There are no efforts to recover the money in question. The officers responsible for updating the accounts as well as overseeing officers should be penalized for their negligence.” Basing on this report, the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, addressed the impugned letter dated 27.07.2010 to the Project Director, DRDA-IKP, Ongole, informing him that as per the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 01.07.2010, the petitioner who had been terminated from service under proceedings dated 21.01.2006 of the Zilla Samakhya, Prakasam District, should not be reinstated in duty. It is relevant to note that the Project Director, DRDA-IKP, Ongole, was also requested under the impugned letter dated 27.07.2010 to take up follow-up action on the following points as suggested by the Enquiry Officer and submit compliance. i) For recovery of the amounts from the community members, who have agreed that they have received some money. ii) It is pointed out that community members, who are frequently involved in these type of transactions are continuing as Office Bearers till today. Appropriate measures have to be initiated as per the byelaw of the respective VO/MS. iii) The officers, who are responsible for updating the accounts, as well as the overseeing officers shall be penalized for their negligence. Upon being informed of the letter dated 27.07.2010, the petitioner chose to approach the State Human Rights Commission at Hyderabad complaining that he was not even furnished a copy of this last enquiry report. He also sought a direction to the authorities to reinstate him in service. This complaint was filed before the Commission on 12.09.2010. By its order dated 01.02.2011, the Commission directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service and adjourned the matter to enable the authorities to report compliance. Aggrieved thereby, the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Hyderabad, filed W.P.No.23842 of 2011 before this Court. This complaint was filed before the Commission on 12.09.2010. By its order dated 01.02.2011, the Commission directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service and adjourned the matter to enable the authorities to report compliance. Aggrieved thereby, the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Hyderabad, filed W.P.No.23842 of 2011 before this Court. By order dated 28.08.2012, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition holding that the exercise undertaken by the Commission was without jurisdiction and set aside its order dated 01.02.2011. Liberty was however given to the petitioner herein to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner filed the present case on 27.09.2012. The removal of the petitioner from service offends the Rule of Law on counts more than one. However, as the respondents seek to stave off scrutiny thereof by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by raising the question of maintainability of this writ petition, it would be appropriate to consider this issue at the outset. The contention urged by Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel for the respondents, is that the Samakhyas, being societies registered under the Act of 1995, would not fall within the ambit of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and in consequence, this writ petition challenging the action of a Zilla Samakhya would not be maintainable. In days of yore, the identity of State actors and consequently, their actions, were clearly defined and patently identifiable. However, over time the State branched out its activities into different walks of life and in the course of this exercise, it assumed varied and diverse forms. Corporations and Societies created by and/or under statute came into existence for this purpose. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in AJAY HASIA Vs. KHALID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI ( (1981) 1 SCC 722 ), with increasing assumption by the Government of commercial ventures and economic projects, the ‘corporate entity’ became an effective legal contrivance in its hands for carrying out its activities as it facilitated considerable flexibility and elasticity in management. However, ‘Corporations’ acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the Government would obviously be subject to the same limitations in the fields of constitutional and administrative law as the Government itself though, in the eye of law, they would be distinct and independent legal entities (R.D.SHETTY Vs. However, ‘Corporations’ acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the Government would obviously be subject to the same limitations in the fields of constitutional and administrative law as the Government itself though, in the eye of law, they would be distinct and independent legal entities (R.D.SHETTY Vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA ( (1979) 3 SCC 489 )). Trite to state, it is only if the organization concerned comes within the ambit of ‘State’ as defined by Article 12 of the Constitution that the ground of arbitrariness, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, would be available against it in a writ petition. The definition of State under Article 12 is an inclusive one whereby the Government and the Legislatures at the Central and State levels along with local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India are covered. Therefore, a body corporate or society, which is alleged to be an instrumentality of the State, must necessarily fall within the precinct of ‘other authorities’ in Article 12 to partake the identity of the ‘State’. The question as to what are the ‘other authorities’ contemplated by Article 12 was considered by a Constitution Bench in AJAY HASIA (supra). It was pointed out therein that ‘other authorities’ must be given such an interpretation as to not stultify the operation and reach of the fundamental rights by enabling the Government to discharge its obligation in relation to fundamental rights by setting up an authority to act as its instrumentality or agency for carrying out its functions. The Supreme Court observed that where constitutional fundamentals vital to the maintenance of human rights are at stake, functional realism and not facial cosmetics must be the diagnostic tool, for constitutional law must seek the substance and not the form. It would be apposite to extract certain observations made by the Supreme Court. “7. …The Government in many of its commercial ventures and public enterprises is resorting to more and more frequently to this resourceful legal contrivance of a corporation because it has many practical advantages and at the same time does not involve the slightest diminution in its ownership and control of the undertaking. “7. …The Government in many of its commercial ventures and public enterprises is resorting to more and more frequently to this resourceful legal contrivance of a corporation because it has many practical advantages and at the same time does not involve the slightest diminution in its ownership and control of the undertaking. In such cases “the true owner is the State, the real operator is the State and the effective controllorate is the State and accountability for its actions to the community and to Parliament is of the State.” It is undoubtedly true that the corporation is a distinct juristic entity with a corporate structure of its own and it carries on its functions on business principles with a certain amount of autonomy which is necessary as well as useful from the point of view of effective business management, but behind the formal ownership which is cast in the corporate mould, the reality is very much the deeply pervasive presence of the Government. It is really the Government which acts through the instrumentality or agency of the corporation and the juristic veil of corporate personality worn for the purpose of convenience of management and administration cannot be allowed to obliterate the true nature of the reality behind which is the Government. Now it is obvious that if a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government, it must be subject to the same limitations in the field of constitutional law as the Government itself, though in the eye of the law it would be a distinct and independent legal entity. If the Government acting through its officers is subject to certain constitutional limitations, it must follow a fortiorari that the Government acting through the instrumentality or agency of a corporation should equally be subject to the same limitations. If such a corporation were to be free from the basic obligation to obey the Fundamental Rights, it would lead to considerable erosion of the efficiency of the Fundamental Rights, for in that event the Government would be enabled to override the Fundamental Rights by adopting the stratagem of carrying out its functions through the instrumentality or agency of a corporation, while retaining control over it. … …” In R.D.SHETTY (supra), the Supreme Court culled out the relevant tests for determining as to when a corporation/agency can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the Government. … …” In R.D.SHETTY (supra), the Supreme Court culled out the relevant tests for determining as to when a corporation/agency can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the Government. These tests were stated not to be conclusive or clinching, but merely indicative indicia which were to be used with care and caution. They are: “(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p. 507, para 14) (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with Governmental character. (SCC p. 508, para 15) (3) It may also be a relevant factor ... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. (SCC p. 508, para 15) (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (SCC p. 508, para 15) (5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p. 509, para 16) (6) ‘Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference’ of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government.” (SCC p. 510, para 18)” In AJAY HASIA (supra), the Supreme Court, while approving the aforestated tests, pointed out that it is immaterial whether a corporation was created ‘by a statute’ or ‘under a statute'. The test, per the Supreme Court, was as to whether the corporation/agency was an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it was created. Whatever be its genetic origin, the Supreme Court held that a corporation/agency would be an ‘authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 if it was an instrumentality of the Government on a proper assessment of the facts. It is in the backdrop of this settled legal position that the character and the status of the respondents have to be examined. Whatever be its genetic origin, the Supreme Court held that a corporation/agency would be an ‘authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 if it was an instrumentality of the Government on a proper assessment of the facts. It is in the backdrop of this settled legal position that the character and the status of the respondents have to be examined. In this regard, it would be relevant to note some of the Directive Principles of State Policy formulated in Part IV of the Constitution in the context of the responsibility of the State to eliminate poverty. Article 38 (2) postulates that the State shall strive to minimize the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities amongst individuals and groups of people while Article 39 (a) requires the State to direct its policy towards securing the right to an adequate means of livelihood for its citizens. It is perhaps in furtherance of achieving these objectives that the Government of Andhra Pradesh formed the SERP. This society was registered under the provisions of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350-Fasli. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the SERP demonstrate that it was established to set up an autonomous support organization which would combine the authority and accountability of the Government with flexibility of operations. The preamble to the Memorandum and Articles of Association reads to the effect that successful programmes demonstrated the willingness and potential in the poor to help themselves through a process of self-mobilization, but the poor required sufficient guidance in formation, development and strengthening of their institutions, identification of their priority needs and management of initiatives for poverty elimination. One of the objectives of the society was to implement the Andhra Pradesh District Poverty Initiatives Project and contribute to the lives of the rural poor through empowerment and fostering strong self-managed grass-root institutions and support investments by groups of the poor. The Chief Minister of the State, the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries of the Rural Development, Social Welfare, Institutional Finance and Woman Development and Child Welfare Departments were to be the ex-officio members of the general body of the society. The Chief Minister was to be its Chairman. The finances of the society were to consist of, amongst others, recurring and non-recurring grants made by the Government of India and funds received from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Chief Minister was to be its Chairman. The finances of the society were to consist of, amongst others, recurring and non-recurring grants made by the Government of India and funds received from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In so far as this society is concerned, it is not disputed that in the light of the public/governmental character of its functions and the active involvement of State functionaries and State finances, it is a State instrumentality. The controversy however is as to the status of Zilla Samakhyas and Mandal Samakhyas which were constituted in connection with this programme. The Presidents of the village organizations in the mandal formed Mandal Samakhyas and the Presidents of the Mandal Samakhyas in the District formed a Zilla Samakhya. The Mandal Samakhyas and the Zilla Samakhya were registered as independent societies under the Act of 1995. A distinction is sought to be drawn between the SERP and the Zilla/Mandal Samakhyas by pointing out that the SERP is neither a shareholder nor a member in the Zilla/Mandal Samakhyas. It is pointed out the Collector of the district and the functionaries of the DRDA were not part of the organizational set up of these samakhyas. The Government of Andhra Pradesh was stated to have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the SERP to implement its Rural Poverty Elimination Schemes in the State and in this context, the SERP was to pass on the amounts to be spent on poverty eradication programmes in the rural areas through the DRDAs and engaged Tribal Development Agencies to reach out to the beneficiaries. The DRDAs were to encourage poor rural women to form into self-help groups, comprising 10 to 15 women, and these groups were to form village organizations at the village level. The self-help groups were to place indents for financial assistance through the village organizations with the Mandal Samakhyas which were to process the same and sanction loans. The Zilla Samakhyas were to coordinate with the Government on behalf of Mandal Samakhyas, the village organizations and the self-help groups through the DRDAs for providing bank inclusion and loans. The Zilla/Mandal Samakhyas and the village organizations were stated to be autonomous bodies having their own bye-laws. The District Collector and the DRDA had no role to play in the day-to-day affairs of these societies. The Zilla/Mandal Samakhyas and the village organizations were stated to be autonomous bodies having their own bye-laws. The District Collector and the DRDA had no role to play in the day-to-day affairs of these societies. Though this is the stand put-forth in the pleadings, the manifest actions, be it on the part of the District Collector, the DRDA or the SERP, demonstrate contradictions and inconsistencies galore as to the so-called autonomy and independence of these societies. Admittedly, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Community Coordinator in the project under the Andhra Pradesh Rural Poverty Reduction Project (APRPRP), Prakasam Division, by the Additional Project Director of the DRDA, Prakasam, by order dated 24.12.2002. He was neither appointed by any Mandal or Zilla Samakhya nor were his services transferred or placed on deputation basis with a samakhya. Thus, he was treated as an employee of the DRDA, Prakasam District, as is evidenced by the fact that he was placed under suspension by the DRDA and not by the Zilla Samakhya. The manner in which he was dealt with after his unceremonious removal from service by the Zilla Samakhya, Prakasam District, also manifests that the District Collector, Prakasam, and the functionaries of the SERP and the DRDA, Prakasam, were fully involved. In fact, the challenge in this writ petition is to the letter dated 27.07.2010 issued by the SERP confirming that the petitioner need not be reinstated in service. Had it no role to play apropos the petitioner’s services, the SERP would not have issued such a letter. Earlier, the District Collector, Prakasam, admittedly directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service. Though the said directive was not acted upon, the facts stated hereinafter will demonstrate that his similar direction in the case of another employee, U.Subba Rao, an APM who was also removed from service by the Zilla Samakhya, Prakasam, was duly implemented. Further, the cases of five other employees who were placed under suspension along with the petitioner demonstrate that no distinction was drawn between the samakhyas and State authorities while dealing with these so called employees of the samakhyas. Thus, it is manifest that the State and its instrumentalities, the SERP and the DRDA, Prakasam, were actively involved in the functioning of the samakhyas, notwithstanding their independent registration as societies under the Act of 1995. Thus, it is manifest that the State and its instrumentalities, the SERP and the DRDA, Prakasam, were actively involved in the functioning of the samakhyas, notwithstanding their independent registration as societies under the Act of 1995. Further, these samakhyas were integral to the programme for elimination of rural poverty, a governmental initiative. This Court therefore holds that as the personality of the State and its instrumentalities deeply permeated and imbued the samakhyas and their functioning, this Writ Petition is maintainable, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner’s removal from service was effected through a resolution passed by a Zilla Samakhya. Coming to the merits of the matter, the removal of the petitioner from service on 21.01.2006 on the basis of a resolution passed by the Zilla Samakhya, Prakasam District, without any finding of guilt being recorded against him in a duly constituted enquiry violates not only the principles of natural justice but also the fundamental tenets of service jurisprudence. Even if the petitioner was treated as a contract employee, as his removal was stigmatic in nature it necessarily had to be preceded by an enquiry whereby, after giving him due opportunity of hearing, it would have been open to the Zilla Samakhya to hold him guilty of the alleged misappropriation. While so, the two enquiries which followed after the removal of the petitioner from service resulted in the unequivocal finding that there was no evidence to hold him guilty of the alleged misappropriation. When the first report was submitted by Smt.P.John Kumari, the Enquiry Officer, and the same was brought to the notice of the Collector, Prakasam District, he specifically directed the reinstatement of the petitioner while ordering a thorough probe by way of a re-enquiry to establish specific guilt. This direction, on the face of it, was clear and unambiguous. The Collector, Prakasam District, while giving the petitioner a clean chit, directed the authorities to institute a fresh enquiry for the purpose of finding those who were specifically guilty of the alleged misappropriation. Though Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel, would contend that the District Collector, Prakasam District, had no role to play in the matter and therefore, his direction as to the reinstatement of the petitioner was of no consequence, the said argument cannot be accepted. Though Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel, would contend that the District Collector, Prakasam District, had no role to play in the matter and therefore, his direction as to the reinstatement of the petitioner was of no consequence, the said argument cannot be accepted. It is relevant to note that when U.Subbarao, APM, Parachur, was removed from service by the same resolution dated 21.01.2006 of the Zilla Samakhya, the District Collector, Prakasam District, directed his reinstatement and acting thereupon, the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam District, reinstated him in service under proceedings dated 29.04.2008. Therefore, the direction of the District Collector, Prakasam District, that the petitioner should be reinstated in service ought not to have been brushed aside. However, having done so, the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam District, surprisingly sought a clarification from the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Hyderabad. There is no recorded hierarchy in the functioning of the samakhyas, whereby the Chief Executive Officer of the SERP could have prevailed over and overruled the direction of the District Collector, Prakasam. Thereupon, the second enquiry by Smt.P.John Kumari was instituted. However, this enquiry also resulted in a clean chit being given to the petitioner and a specific finding that the village organizations themselves were responsible for the loss of the monies alleged to have been misappropriated. However, despite this report, the then Additional Chief Executive Officer, SERP, did not let the matter rest there and again instituted a fresh enquiry through Sri Y.V.Raghunadha Reddy, State Project Manager (CIF), of the SERP. The findings of this one-sided enquiry were also to the effect that there was no documentary evidence to prove the involvement of the petitioner in the fraud relating to this loss. The Enquiry Officer further recorded that it may not be wise to initiate recoveries from the petitioner owing to the delay. Interesting to note, this Enquiry Officer recorded that the Community Members had themselves agreed that they had received some monies which were to be recovered. He also recommended that appropriate measures be initiated to see that such Community Members did not continue as office bearers of the village organizations or Mandal Samakhya. Interesting to note, this Enquiry Officer recorded that the Community Members had themselves agreed that they had received some monies which were to be recovered. He also recommended that appropriate measures be initiated to see that such Community Members did not continue as office bearers of the village organizations or Mandal Samakhya. In so far as the petitioner was concerned, he recommended that as he was a contract employee, there was no obligation to renew his contract as the circumstantial evidence ‘pointed a finger’ at him and he had not initiated any action to recover the money or record the transaction. There is no elaboration on what was the circumstantial evidence and as to how it pointed a finger at the petitioner. The mere ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer in this regard commends no credibility. Further, the scope of the functioning of a Community Coordinator also needs to be examined in this context. It may be noticed that the Velugu/IKP Project was aimed at organizing the rural poor into self-help groups, village organizations and samakhyas through social mobilization and women empowerment process and Community Coordinators were envisaged as important functionaries at the grass-root level to directly work with the communities and facilitate them to build self-managed and self-reliant institutions enabling the poor to enlarge opportunities for socio-economic development. In implementation of this project, the Community Investment Fund (CIF) was envisaged as an investment in the organizations of the poor at the village organization/mandal samakhya level for providing loans and mobilizing bank credit to the members for income generation activities, for providing working capital/revolving credit for procurement and marketing by village organizations and mandal samakhyas and also as a fund for creating productive infrastructure and its self-management. The beneficiaries of this fund were to be the members of self-help groups which were federated into the village organizations. Circular No.23 dated 31.01.2004 of the SERP, Hyderabad, indicates that Community Coordinators were envisaged in the project as very important functionaries at the grass root level to directly work with the community. This circular clarifies various issues concerning Community Coordinators, including their role, responsibilities and entitlements. The activities to be performed by them were detailed in the job chart as under. “a. They shall tour all the villages in their cluster for 20 days a month and shall make at least 10 night halts in the villages. This circular clarifies various issues concerning Community Coordinators, including their role, responsibilities and entitlements. The activities to be performed by them were detailed in the job chart as under. “a. They shall tour all the villages in their cluster for 20 days a month and shall make at least 10 night halts in the villages. b. They shall attend the trainings and meetings at MVTC as required in the MVTC Training calendar. c. They shall prepare monthly work plans for various project activities and implement them without fail. Model work plans evolved by community coordinators in their MS meetings in Khammam and other districts are enclosed for your guidance. Every month the CCs prepare the work plans and perform their functions as per the work plan and attend the Mandal Samakhya monthly meetings where their performance will be reviewed as per the work plans in the monthly Mandal Samakhya meetings. In the monthly Mandal Samakhya meetings the VO members will bring various concerns and issues regarding the functioning of SHGs and VOs and the CCs should include the requirements of the members in their monthly work plans and give the necessary support and guidance to the SHGs and VOs. d. The Project activities for the CCs include: i. Formation of new groups with left over poor. ii. Preparing work plans integrating with MBKs, Las and MTCs at the Mandal level. iii. Facilitation support for strengthening existing and new groups. iv. Trainings to SHGs in group management and book keeping. v. Formation of village organizations. vi. Facilitation support for strengthening of VOs in management and book keeping. vii. Trainings to VO members in conducting LEAPs andpreparation of CIF Sub-Projects. viii. Facilitation support to VOs in grounding CIF Sub-Projects. ix. Effective coverage of SHG bank linkage programme. x. Regularly assessment of training needs for CAs andgroups and conducting trainings. xi. Attending meetings and reviews of Mandal Samakhya xii. Maintaining the database for SHGs and VOs. xiii. Furnishing monthly MIS on the project activities. xiv. Work in coordination with line departments and other functionaries of the project at the Mandal level. The aforesaid circular makes it clear that Community Coordinators were not empowered to handle financial transactions and there is no indication of their being given the responsibility of fund management or actual handling of monies. xiii. Furnishing monthly MIS on the project activities. xiv. Work in coordination with line departments and other functionaries of the project at the Mandal level. The aforesaid circular makes it clear that Community Coordinators were not empowered to handle financial transactions and there is no indication of their being given the responsibility of fund management or actual handling of monies. The SERP also issued Circular No.911 dated 30.08.2003 stipulating the guidelines for formation and strengthening of village organizations. As per this circular, only details of the implementation of the project, including the repayment schedule, are to be maintained by the Community Coordinators and they are required to facilitate and ensure that proper in-time repayment of CIF loans is made by the members of the self-help groups to the village organizations/Mandal Samakhyas. Further, the village organization is required to open a bank account in its own name and two or three office bearers are required to sign the cheque for drawal of monies from the account. The Executive Committee of the village organization is required to pass a resolution for every financial transaction and write a cheque only thereafter. The above material demonstrates that the petitioner, in the role of a Community Coordinator, was not empowered to initiate steps for recovering the monies said to have been misappropriated or maintain financial accounts. In fact, the final recommendations in the impugned letter indicate that the quest is still on-going as to pinning the guilt on those actually responsible. The petitioner seems to have been picked upon as a convenient scapegoat and despite the consistent finding in all the enquiries that there was no evidence to link him with the alleged misappropriation, the authorities remain adamant on sacrificing him at the altar. There is yet another facet to the matter. The SERP promulgated the ‘Terms and Conditions of Employment of SERP Employees, 2009’ (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 2009’), which came into effect from 22.01.2009. Clause 2.2 of these rules delineated the staff of the SERP into various levels. A Community Coordinator, falling under L2 category, is one of the classified employees of the SERP. The method of appointment and the appointing authority are detailed under Clause 3. In so far as L2 category is concerned, the unit of appointment is the District and the appointing authority is the Project Director. A Community Coordinator, falling under L2 category, is one of the classified employees of the SERP. The method of appointment and the appointing authority are detailed under Clause 3. In so far as L2 category is concerned, the unit of appointment is the District and the appointing authority is the Project Director. It is however stipulated that no direct recruitment was to be undertaken in future for this post and selection was to be limited to the existing eligible employees as prescribed by the Executive Council of the SERP. These terms and conditions of employment also provide the procedure for removing an employee under Clause 3.11, which unequivocally states to the effect that such removal must be preceded by due procedure. An appeal against such removal is provided within 90 days to the authority prescribed. Clause 8.9 provides that the Chief Executive Officer of the SERP is the Appellate Authority in respect of the orders issued by the Project Director in so far as employees in Levels 1, 2 and 3 are concerned. These terms and conditions of employment therefore put it beyond doubt that Community Coordinators were treated as employees of the SERP at least from the year 2009 and were to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. Further, as no direct recruitment was to be made to the post after the rules came into force, the existing Community Coordinator were to be accommodated in the regular posts in the SERP. It is however the contention of Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel, that these rules were brought into effect only in the year 2009, well after the petitioner ceased to be a Community Coordinator, and would therefore not apply to him. Though there is force in this contention, the fact remains that the stand of the SERP that it has nothing to do with Community Coordinators who were to function under the Zilla Samakhyas/Mandal Samakhyas is watered down by its subsequent action in adopting such Community Coordinators as its own employees. Further, the fact that these rules provide a detailed procedure to be followed prior to removal of such Community Coordinator strengthens the case of the petitioner that the manner in which his services were dispensed with unceremoniously was in clear violation of the standards of fair play expected of a model employer. Further, the fact that these rules provide a detailed procedure to be followed prior to removal of such Community Coordinator strengthens the case of the petitioner that the manner in which his services were dispensed with unceremoniously was in clear violation of the standards of fair play expected of a model employer. The principles of natural justice would be applicable even without such rules and the manner in which the petitioner’s services were dispensed with is undoubtedly in violation of the same. Further, the petitioner, owing to his removal, was denied absorption in the regular post on par with other Community Coordinators appointed along with him. The case may also be examined from another angle. The petitioner alleged before the Commission that he was discriminated against on the ground that others similarly situated, who were suspended along with him, had been reinstated in service but he was denied the said relief. The SERP filed a detailed report in this regard before the Commission. Therein, referring to the petitioner’s case, the SERP stated that he was not reinstated in service basing on the recommendation of the last Enquiry Officer in his report dated 01.07.2010. Referring to the allegation levelled by him that five other persons who were also suspended along with him had been reinstated, the SERP furnished the details of these persons. They were (1) T.Ashok Kumar, APM, Talluru, (2) Gayathri Lakshmi, I/c APM, Ulavapadu, (3) U.Subbarao, APM, Parachur, (4) B.Chandrasekhar, CC, Parachur, and (5) K.Tirumala Yasoda, I/c. APM, Veligandla. In so far as T.Ashok Kumar, APM, was concerned, it was stated that he had been suspended under the proceedings dated 30.11.2005 of the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam, on the charge of misappropriation of CIF funds to the tune of Rs.13,497/- without the approval of higher authorities. The Zilla Samakhya was stated to have resolved to remove him from service under proceedings dated 21.01.2006. However, the Special Deputy Collector (LA), NH 5, Prakasam District, in his enquiry report dated 12.06.2006 held that APM had spent Rs.5,000/- towards mess charges, Rs.8,000/- towards CRPs honorarium and Rs.600/- for Yanadi CRPs. The Enquiry Officer reported that these amounts were spent with the consent of Mandal Samakhya and not for his personal use and recommended to excuse his lapse in utilizing Government funds and to reinstate him. The Enquiry Officer reported that these amounts were spent with the consent of Mandal Samakhya and not for his personal use and recommended to excuse his lapse in utilizing Government funds and to reinstate him. The District Collector, Prakasam District, ordered recovery of the misused amounts from the individual and T.Ashok Kumar, APM, was thereafter reinstated on 03.11.2007 pursuant to the proceedings of the same date of the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam. The Zilla Samakhya, in its meetings held on 02.08.2008 and 03.08.2008, was stated to have resolved to condone the break in his service and recommended for his inclusion in the HR Policy. On this basis, the SERP stated that this case was different from that of the petitioner. As regards K.Gayatri Lakshmi, I/c APM, she was charged with several irregularities which included drawal and disbursement of salaries before the due date of payment to the tune of Rs.97,850/-, modifications in the record as to drawal of stipends and FTA excess drawal of Rs.10,980/- from the bank relating to the Mandal Samakhya and drawal of stipend, FTA and rice credit line amounts at a single time and distribution thereof. She was removed from service for a month on 30.11.2005 by the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam District. The SERP therefore stated that the allegations levelled against her were duly proved and the Zilla Samakhya resolved to scale down her honorarium from Rs.250/- per day to Rs.150/- per day under its proceedings dated 21.01.2006. These facts and figures, according to the SERP, distinguished this case from that of the petitioner. The case of U.Subba Rao, APM, has already been referred to supra. The charge levelled against him was that he had committed forgery for drawal of salary relating to one B.Chandrasekhar, Community Coordinator, to the tune of Rs.10,200/-. He was suspended from service under proceedings dated 30.11.2005 of the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam District. The Zilla Samakhya was stated to have resolved to remove him from service by its resolution dated 21.01.2006. However, the Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit Department, Ongole, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, submitted report dated 15.04.2006 stating that B.Chandrasekhar, the Community Coordinator concerned, had given two different statements in the enquiry and as his signatures taken during the enquiry had not tallied, the Additional Project Director, DRDA, recommended his reinstatement in service and transfer to a distant place. Accordingly, the District Collector, Prakasam, ordered his reinstatement and the individual was reinstated on 29.04.2008 under proceedings of the same date issued by the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam District. B.Chandrasekhar, Community Coordinator, Inkollu, was suspended for a month on 30.11.2005 by the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam District, for committing an irregularity in submitting two contradictory statements as to his absence. K.Tirumala Yasoda, DRP/Incharge APM, Veligandla, was stated to have been kept under suspension under proceedings dated 30.11.2005 of the Project Director, DRDA, Ongole. She was thereafter removed from service under the proceedings dated 21.01.2006 of the Zilla Samakhya. The Special Deputy Collector, LA, NH-5, Prakasam District, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer also confirmed that she had misutilized the project funds in his report dated 12.06.2006. The aforestated instances demonstrate that a rather lenient attitude was adopted in the cases of those occupying far superior positions than the petitioner despite established irregularities in their functioning and they were let off lightly. Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would therefore castigate such actions as being wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel, would however contend that even if the respondents extended illegal benefit to others who were suspended along with the petitioner, it would not entitle him to claim the same relief. He relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in SHANTI SPORTS CLUB Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( (2009) 15 SCC 705 ) to the effect that the High Court should not compel an authority which has passed an illegal/unwarranted order to repeat that illegality over and over again. The above judgment however does not benefit the respondents. The reference made by this Court to the manner in which the other employees were treated is only in the context of highlighting the discriminatory and arbitrary approach of the SERP and its functionaries. The petitioner’s entitlement to relief stands on an independent and higher footing based on the manner in which he was dealt with and not on a comparison with others. Trite to state, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not act as an appellate authority and its jurisdiction is circumscribed by the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of the principles of natural justice (LALIT POPLI Vs. Trite to state, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not act as an appellate authority and its jurisdiction is circumscribed by the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of the principles of natural justice (LALIT POPLI Vs. CANARA BANK ( (2003) 3 SCC 583 )). It may be noted that no less than three enquiries were instituted against the petitioner and all of them were after his removal from service. These enquiries did not throw up any evidence against the petitioner though Sri Y.V.Raghunadha Reddy, the second Enquiry Officer, stated in his final recommendations that circumstantial evidence pointed a finger at the petitioner. He however did not elaborate on this aspect but, on the other hand, clearly recorded that there was no documentary evidence to show his involvement in the alleged misappropriation. Smt.P.John Kumari, the first Enquiry Officer, gave a complete clean chit to the petitioner in both her reports. In SHAIK MOHD. HUSSAIN Vs. A.P. STATE WAKF BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HYDERABAD ( 2009 (5) ALT 350 (DB)), a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, held that institution of a de novo enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer afresh without even setting aside the findings recorded by the earlier Enquiry Officer and giving due reasons therefor was unsustainable in law. The said principle is applicable on all fours to the case on hand. The facts demonstrate that others who were suspended from service and subjected to disciplinary proceedings were let off lightly though they were superior in rank to the petitioner and were also held guilty of defalcation of amounts. Once lack of integrity is established, it is of no significance as to what is the amount involved. All the more so, when such lack of integrity relates to an officer occupying a higher position. This unfortunately was not the approach of the SERP. Misutilization of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘mess charges’ weighed lightly upon the SERP while the petitioner, who was not even found to be actually involved in the misappropriation, was picked upon only because of the larger figure involved. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in M.V. BIJLANI Vs. This unfortunately was not the approach of the SERP. Misutilization of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘mess charges’ weighed lightly upon the SERP while the petitioner, who was not even found to be actually involved in the misappropriation, was picked upon only because of the larger figure involved. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in M.V. BIJLANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( (2006) 5 SCC 88 ), disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and there should therefore be some evidence to prove the charge. Such charges, per the Supreme Court, are not required to be proved like in a criminal trial i.e., ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ but there must at least be a ‘preponderance of probability’ to prove the charges on the basis of the material on record. In the present case, successive enquiries did not result in such a finding against the petitioner by any stretch of imagination. In MATHURA PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( (2007) 1 SCC 437 ), the Supreme Court, while dealing with successive enquiries, observed that it would be open to the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer but it would be necessary for it to record its reasons. Even if the disciplinary authorities disagreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officers, the Supreme Court observed that such disagreement must also be supported by recorded reasons. In the present case, there is no material forthcoming from the records as to why the reports of Smt.P.John Kumari were brushed aside warranting a fresh enquiry by Sri Y.V.Raghunadha Reddy. Further, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by Sri Y.V.Raghunadha Reddy during the so called enquiry undertaken by him. This also violates the dictum of the Supreme Court in MATHURA PRASAD (Supra) as the Supreme Court specifically observed therein that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the delinquent officer in the further enquiry which is ordered by the disciplinary authority upon being dissatisfied with the earlier enquiry. Similar was the view taken by the Constitution Bench in K.R.DEB Vs. Similar was the view taken by the Constitution Bench in K.R.DEB Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG ( 1971 (2) SCC 102 ), wherein it was held that even if in a particular case it is found that no proper enquiry was conducted owing to some serious defect therein, the disciplinary authority may be entitled to ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence but there would be no sanction in law to completely set aside the previous enquiry on the ground that the report of the inquiring officer does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel, placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in para 17 of STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. S.N.GOYAL ( (2008) 8 SCC 92 ) in the context of enforcement of a contract of personal service. This paragraph reads as under: “17. Where the relationship of master and servant is purely contractual, it is well settled that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Even if the termination of the contract of employment (by dismissal or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the remedy of the employee is only to seek damages and not specific performance. Courts will neither declare such termination to be a nullity nor declare that the contract of employment subsists nor grant the consequential relief of reinstatement. The three well-recognised exceptions to this rule are: (i) where a civil servant is removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India (or any law made under Article 309); (ii) where a workman having the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is wrongly terminated from service; and (iii) where an employee of a statutory body is terminated from service in breach or violation of any mandatory provision of a statute or statutory rules. There is thus a clear distinction between public employment governed by statutory rules and private employment governed purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief—damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs—is whether the employment is governed purely by contract or by a statute or statutory rules. There is thus a clear distinction between public employment governed by statutory rules and private employment governed purely by contract. The test for deciding the nature of relief—damages or reinstatement with consequential reliefs—is whether the employment is governed purely by contract or by a statute or statutory rules. Even where the employer is a statutory body, where the relationship is purely governed by contract with no element of statutory governance, the contract of personal service will not be specifically enforceable. Conversely, where the employer is a non-statutory body, but the employment is governed by a statute or statutory rules, a declaration that the termination is null and void and that the employee should be reinstated can be granted by courts. (Vide S.B. Dutt (Dr.) v. University of Delhi, U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, J.Tiwari v. Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir and Dipak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instruction.)” However, this Court finds that the case on hand stands on a different footing. The removal of the petitioner from service is stigmatic in nature. Further, as per the Rules of 2009, the petitioner, had he continued in service, would have become a regular employee of the SERP, a State instrumentality. Therefore, even if his initial appointment was contractual in nature, his removal from service, in the circumstances obtaining, necessarily had to be preceded by adherence to due procedure. In the absence of the same, this Court would be entitled to interfere and grant appropriate relief. It would therefore not be a case of enforcing a contract of personal service barred by Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Reliance is also placed by Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel, on the observations of the Supreme Court in B.C.CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( (1995) 6 SCC 749 ) as to the scope of judicial review in a matter of this nature. As pointed out therein, it is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. As pointed out therein, it is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. Notably, the Supreme Court pointed out in the above decision that the Court may interfere where the authority held proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. As this Court finds all these ingredients presently, this judgment does not benefit the respondents. Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel, further contended that the remedy for the petitioner would be to either invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Act of 1995. He placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in P.ESWARAMOORTHY Vs. R.J.B. LEORAJ (LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-282). It is no doubt true that remedies may be available to the petitioner under other statutes. However, once this Court finds that the principles of natural justice were cast to the winds by the respondents and the petitioner was dealt with in a manner most unfair and unjust, the extraordinary remedy of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available to the petitioner and it is not open to the respondents to seek to shut out the jurisdiction of this Court on technicalities. In S.S.RANA Vs. REGISTRAR, COOP. SOCIETIES ( (2006) 11 SCC 634 ), the Supreme Court was dealing with a co-operative society which was not under the direct or indirect control of the State and found that the said society did not answer any of the tests whereby it could be said to partake the character of a State. On that basis it was held that a writ petition would not lie. On that basis it was held that a writ petition would not lie. As this Court finds on facts that the set up obtaining under the control of the SERP was one relating to the discharge of a State function and as the SERP, being a State instrumentality, along with the State functionaries, had deep and pervasive control over the functioning of the societies formed for undertaking the programme of poverty eradication, this case law is of no avail to the respondents. Be it noted that if the SERP had no control over the functioning of the Zilla Samakhya of which the petitioner was allegedly an employee, there was no question of it granting final approval in the matter under the letter 27.07.2010. The principle laid down in S.S.RANA (Supra) therefore has no application. Reference was also made by Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel, to the observations of the Supreme Court in ANDHRA PRADESH DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FEDERATION Vs. B.NARASIMHA REDDY ( (2011) 9 SCC 286 ) in the context of the societies formed under the Act of 1995. Therein, the Supreme Court observed that as the Government was exercising more control over the societies formed under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, the Act of 1995 provided for multiplicity of organisations and statutory authorities had no right to classify such societies and therefore, the control of the Government under the Act of 1995 was minimal. These observations are relied upon by the learned counsel in support of his contention that the Zilla and Mandal Samakhyas, being societies registered under the Act of 1995, were independent in nature and would therefore not come within the ambit of State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. This Court however finds on facts that though the Samakhyas were registered under the Act of 1995, they were far from independent as is clearly demonstrated by the manner in which their functioning was dictated to by the functionaries of the State. As the endeavour of the respondents seems to have been to pin the blame on the petitioner one way or the other, perhaps to escape the financial consequences entailed by giving him a clean chit and reinstating him in service, this Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit naming the officers concerned who were responsible for the decisions taken at different points of time. Thereupon, Sri B.Rajsekhar, the Chief Executive Officer of the SERP, filed additional affidavit dated 25.06.2013 stating that upon receipt of the letter dated 06.07.2009 from the Project Director, DRDA, Prakasam, seeking a clarification as to the reinstatement of the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Collector, Prakasam District, the then Chief Executive Officer of the SERP, Sri Vijay Kumar, addressed the letter dated 14.09.2009 seeking information from the Project Director on various aspects. Thereafter, upon receiving the requested information, Sri B.Rajsekhar, being the Additional Chief Executive Officer of the SERP at that time, addressed letter dated 08.12.2009 advising the Project Director to take necessary action to fix up responsibility prior to considering the reinstatement of the petitioner. Upon receipt of the report of the second enquiry under the Project Director’s letter dated 25.02.2010, Sri B.Rajsekhar initiated a third enquiry through Sri Y.V.Raghunatha Reddy, State Project Manager. Directions were issued by him under the impugned letter dated 27.07.2010, upon submission of the enquiry report dated 01.07.2010 by Sri Y.V.Raghunatha Reddy. By this time, Sri B.Rajsekhar had become the Chief Executive Officer of the SERP. He concluded the affidavit by stating that ‘the enquiry was conducted by the SERP only for the purpose of fixing responsibility and finding the crux of the problem so that poor and illiterate women who had come up to such a stage with the co-operative movement were not truncated by corrupt and unscrupulous elements’. Though lofty motives are now sought to be attributed to the unholy exercise, the real objective behind this witch hunt is not far to gather. On 14.09.2009 itself, the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Hyderabad, had raised the issue of considering the huge gap period of three years and seven months for reinstating the petitioner in service. Again, in his enquiry report dated 01.07.2010, Sri Y.V.Raghunadha Reddy stated that the petitioner need not be reinstated in service though there was no documentary evidence to prove his involvement in the fraud as he was only a contract employee. The issue of ‘considerable delay’ was relied upon by him only in the context of initiating recovery processes against the petitioner, but it is quite clear that the authorities were intent upon sweeping under the carpet the perceived irregularities underlying the removal of the petitioner from service so as to avoid the financial implications of dealing with him justly at least at this stage. Sri B.Rajsekhar, the present Chief Executive Officer of the SERP, played a significant role in this exercise. It is for the authorities to examine and determine as to whether the Officers who were actually involved should be made responsible for the financial liability which would arise pursuant to this order and take necessary appropriate action against them in accordance with law. In so far as the main issue is concerned, this Court has no hesitation whatsoever in holding that the petitioner’s removal from service under the Resolution dated 21.01.2006 of the Zilla Samakhya, Prakasam District, was wholly illegal. The action of the SERP, Hyderabad, in confirming the same under the letter dated 27.07.2010 is likewise tainted by illegality and arbitrariness. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2006 and the letter dated 27.07.2010. There shall be a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, the fact remains that the petitioner did not render any service after his removal from service in the year 2006, though through no fault of his. He did not make any averment in the pleadings that he remained unemployed thereafter. If he was gainfully employed, as he presumably was, this Court would necessarily have to take note of that fact while moulding the relief to be granted to him. It is the exchequer who would ultimately be burdened by the financial implications of the illegal acts of the officers concerned. The petitioner would therefore not be entitled to full pay and salary for the period that he was illegally kept out of service. Reference in this regard may be made to M.V. BIJLANI (supra)wherein the Supreme Court, while finally allowing the appeal, took note of the fact that the appellant had not worked for a long time and accordingly directed that he may be paid only 50% of the back wages. The petitioner shall be paid 50% of the back wages for the period that he was kept out of service. He would however be entitled to all other consequential benefits, including regularization of his service under the Rules of 2009. In the circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the adamant attitude of the SERP, Hyderabad, in ignoring the patent illegalities and irregularities surrounding the petitioner’s case warrants imposition of costs. He would however be entitled to all other consequential benefits, including regularization of his service under the Rules of 2009. In the circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the adamant attitude of the SERP, Hyderabad, in ignoring the patent illegalities and irregularities surrounding the petitioner’s case warrants imposition of costs. The SERP, Hyderabad, shall accordingly pay costs to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from today.