Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 286 (AP)

Nanneboyina Rameswari v. State of A. P.

2022-03-11

B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2022
ORDER : Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the proceedings of the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.ESTT.II/1417/2019/DSC-2019, dated 26.03.2020 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Multi Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO) in the respondent-Department on contract basis by the proceedings of the respondent No.3 dated 13.11.2015 and she worked from 14.11.2015 to 24.09.2019. While so, the respondent-Department issued a recruitment notification for the post of Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade-II) in the year 2019 calling for applications from the eligible candidates. In pursuance of the same she applied for the post of Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade-II) and she succeeded in the selection process. Hence, the respondents sent call letter dated 25.09.2019 asking her to produce original certificates for verification. Accordingly she appeared before the respondent No.2 on the said date by producing all the original educational certificates and copies of the same. Having satisfied with the same, the respondents asked her to submit antecedent forms by filling up duly the check list. Then she has taken the assistance of nearby computer operator to fill up the check list form on computer and requested him to type the answer as “Yes” in the column for the information asked “is any case pending against him in any court of law”. But inadvertently the computer operator typed it as “No” in the said column as it was done routinely in the other columns. But there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and her husband and as such some cases arose like maintenance case in M.C.No.52 of 2014, DVC No.3 of 2017 and HMOP No.25 of 2016 filed by the petitioner’s husband for divorce which are pending before the trial courts. Similarly, Crime No.118 of 2014 and Crime No.159 of 2015 were also registered in the police station and the respondents know about these disputes and they noted about these antecedents in the initial appointment itself which is on contract basis. Similarly, Crime No.118 of 2014 and Crime No.159 of 2015 were also registered in the police station and the respondents know about these disputes and they noted about these antecedents in the initial appointment itself which is on contract basis. On coming to know of the petitioner’s selection as Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade-II), the husband of the petitioner filed a complaint dated 30.09.2019 stating that crime No.262 of 2015 under Sections 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC was registered against the petitioner and others and requested the authorities not to issue appointment order. After full-fledged enquiry the respondents herein having found that the said cases are frivolous/trivial in nature issued appointment order on 14.10.2019 to the petitioner by taking a written undertaking letter dated 13.10.2019 to the effect that the appointment is subject to the outcome of the said case. Then she reported to duty on 14.10.2019 itself and started discharging duties to the satisfaction of one and all. Having not satisfied with the attempts made, the petitioner’s husband again complained on 21.10.2019 to the respondents stating that a case in C.C.No.184 of 2016 is pending against the petitioner and sought for cancellation of her appointment. As they are already aware of the petitioner’s antecedent they did not act upon such frivolous complaints of the petitioner’s husband. Then he filed W.P.No.20608 of 2019 against the official respondents to take action on his complaints against the petitioner herein. As the respondents are one and the same in the present writ petition and the above said writ petition, they felt pressure and embarrassment from the side of the petitioner’s husband and ultimately issued a show cause notice dated 28.02.2020 calling for explanation of the petitioner for which the petitioner gave explanation. But without looking into the same, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 26.03.2020 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade-II). Hence, this writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents submitted that a notification bearing No.1/2019 dated 26.07.2019 was issued for recruitment of Village Agriculture Assistants (Grade-II) by duly framing certain guidelines and as per the said notification, no applicant can hide any details of his/her candidature very particularly in the antecedent form as per paragraph 2 of the said notification. The petitioner appeared for the written test for the said post with Hall ticket No.191306001818 and she got qualified. Hence she was called for the verification of certificates on 25.09.2019 along with other eligible candidates. Accordingly she attended the verification of certificates and she was declared as eligible for the post of Village Agriculture Assistants (Grade-II). While so, one Smt. G.V. Neelavani from Ongole rushed to the office of the respondent No.3 on 26.09.2019 and complained that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner in the court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur for the offences under Sections 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC of Crime No.262 of 2015 of Giddalur police station. Again on 28.09.2019 another similar complaint was received against the petitioner from the husband of the petitioner to the respondent No.3. The same person gave similar complaint on 30.09.2019 to the respondent No.2 against the petitioner. In view of the same initially the appointment order was not given to the petitioner and it was kept in abeyance pending consideration of those complaints. The petitioner also in turn gave an explanation on 07.10.2019 stating that they are family members and because of the matrimonial disputes they are causing obstructions like this. On examination of the said complaints the respondents realised that on account of family disputes/matrimonial disputes only the above said cases have been cropped up between the parties and as such they have issued appointment order to the petitioner. Then the petitioner’s husband filed the above said writ petition questioning the issuance of appointment orders to the petitioner on the ground of suppression of criminal case in the antecedent form furnished by the petitioner. After receipt of notices in the above said writ petition, the respondents once again examined the case by getting information from the Station House Officer, Giddalur, with regard to the criminal case filed against the petitioner along with others in C.C.No.184 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 354, 506 and 509 r/w 34 IPC which is pending before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddaluru for trial. In view of the suppression of the above said information, the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 26.03.2020 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. In view of the suppression of the above said information, the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 26.03.2020 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that as the information furnished by the petitioner is contrary to the notification, her appointment was cancelled though it was considered favourably for the petitioner earlier. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I refers to the provisional appointment order of the petitioner issued by the respondent No.2, wherein at paragraph 4 of the terms of appointment it is mentioned that “if any false information is given by you in the Antecedents Verification Form your provisional appointment will be cancelled forthwith and criminal/legal action will be taken”. 6. In the light of the above referred facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions of the counsels, the issue that falls for consideration before this court is “whether the impugned order of the respondent No.2 cancelling the appointment order of the petitioner is sustainable? 7. As stated supra, the petitioner is appointed by the respondent No.2 as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II) and the paragraph 4 of the said appointment order says that if any false information is given by the candidate in the Antecedents Verification Form the provisional appointment will be cancelled forthwith and criminal/legal action will be taken and the paragraph 12 of the order says that the employment conditions will be governed by the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules and/or Special Rules, as applicable, and as amended from time to time in respect of the post. It is to be seen that the petitioner earlier worked as Multi Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO) prior to her appointment as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II). When her appointment orders as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II) were kept in abeyance, on account of complaints given by her husband and other family member, she approached the respondent No.3 and submitted a letter informing that a crime was registered against her by the family members of the husband, which is pending in the learned Magistrate Court at Giddaluru, and sought for issuance of an appointment order subject to outcome of the said case. After verification of the above said cases arisen between the parties on account of family disputes/matrimonial disputes and upon satisfaction of the same and subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner only the authorities issued the appointment order and the respondent No.3 allowed the petitioner to join the duty as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II) vide his proceedings dated 15.10.2019. 8. When she is working smoothly after crossing the above said hurdles in the said post, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 28.02.2020 on account of the writ petition filed by the husband of the petitioner as stated above to show cause why the appointment should not be cancelled for suppression of the factum of pendency of criminal case against her. Then she gave an explanation to the said show cause on 16.03.2020 informing that the respondents are already in the knowledge of the said criminal cases pending between the petitioner and her husband along with their family members and the mistake occurred in the antecedent form submitted against the column with regard to the pendency of cases if any showing as “No” in stead of “Yes” is due to the typographical mistake committed by the computer operator which was unnoticed as she was under a bona fide impression that the appointment order was specifically issued after verification of the said antecedents pursuant to the complaints given by her husband and her sister much prior to the issuance of the appointment order itself soon after her selection as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II). As the respondents have got the knowledge of her antecedents even as on the date of issuance of the appointment order itself, the respondents are not justified in taking the impugned coercive steps at the instance of the husband of the petitioner on the same grounds in order to find fault with the petitioner in respect of an entry of “No” in stead of “Yes” in the said relevant column of antecedent form to disentitle her for the said appointment by way of cancellation. There is no material irregularity committed and the said mistake committed cannot be treated as fatal to cancel the appointment itself at this juncture. The appointment order given for the petitioner after verification of antecedents cannot be revised or cancelled on the very same set of allegations without there being any material change of circumstances. There is no material irregularity committed and the said mistake committed cannot be treated as fatal to cancel the appointment itself at this juncture. The appointment order given for the petitioner after verification of antecedents cannot be revised or cancelled on the very same set of allegations without there being any material change of circumstances. At best, the respondents can review the appointment of the petitioner only subject to the outcome of the criminal case pending against her by following recourse to the law at that time. Mere pendency of the criminal case and the entry made in the antecedent form cannot be the grounds for cancellation of the appointment order of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner cannot be treated as an aggrieved person in the matter of appointment of the petitioner as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II). 9. For all these reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable as it has been passed without application of mind, contrary to the undertaking given by the petitioner and contrary to the State and Subordinate Service Rules as no due procedure was followed before terminating the services of the petitioner by way of cancellation. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a direction to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II) subject to outcome of the criminal case pending against her. The review of the appointment can be made as per law. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.Estt.II/1417/2019/DSC-2019, dated 26.03.2020 and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Village Agriculture Assistant (Grade-II) within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.