Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 14 (AP)

Ch. Sridevi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-03

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2023
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioners from attending the duties without passing any orders, is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7, and learned counsel for the 8th respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Cluster Level Resource Persons in the years 2014 and 2015 after due process of selection. The nomenclature of Cluster Level Resource Person is called as Community Organiser. While so, the respondent authorities issued a notification calling for applications for appointment to the post of Community Organiser from the candidates who are already working. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners submitted applications and they were selected and appointed as Community Organisers in the month of November, 2017 and they were posted to Tadepalligudem Municipality, Jangareddygudem Nagara Panchayat and Kovvuru Municipality respectively. Since then, they have been discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superior officers and there are no adverse remarks against them. Though there is a regular nature of work, the petitioners were termed as outsourcing employees. While so, the petitioners received a notice dated 09.07.2018 issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, West Godavari, directing the petitioners to attend an enquiry on 10.07.2018 along with relevant certificates, since some persons, who could not get considerable marks for appointment in the selection process, made a complaint against them. Accordingly, the petitioners attended the enquiry. As no orders are passed by the respondents, the petitioners are under the impression that the respondents might have dropped further course action against them in pursuance of the subject enquiry: (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioners were appointed as Community Organisers through direct recruitment by the competent authority i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein pursuant to the Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 287, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (UBS) Department, dated 30.08.2018. 2 and 3 herein pursuant to the Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 287, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (UBS) Department, dated 30.08.2018. (ii) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that without passing any orders, the respondents are orally insisting the petitioners not to attend the office and allow them to exercise their bio-metric from 10.12.2018 which is against the due process of law apart from Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners by way of submitting representations, the respondents are not permitting them to attend the duties. The learned counsel also contends that without passing any orders after enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, the respondents cannot restrain the petitioners from attending the duties. Further, except issuing the notice dated 09.07.2018, the respondents did not issue any proceedings thereafter till today. The allegations made in the notice are stigmatic in nature and the petitioners never committed any irregularity or illegality. The learned counsel further contends that the Division Bench of this Court held that without conducting regular enquiry by issuing a charge memo as contemplated under Service Law Jurisprudence, even a temporary or outsourcing employee cannot be terminated from service. Therefore, the respondents cannot terminate the petitioners from service without conducting proper enquiry by observing the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel, therefore, prays to allow the writ petition. (iii) The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that at the time of hearing of the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 24.01.2020 that the petitioners shall not be restrained from attending their duties. However, the respondent authorities are not allowing the petitioner to continue their services. Hence, the petitioners filed a contempt case in C.C. No. 585 of 2020 for wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court. 4. Per contra, learned standing counsel respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioners were engaged into services by an order of appointment dated 21.11.2017 issued by respondent No. 8 which is an outsourcing agency. The appointment of the petitioners is purely temporary and it is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. 4. Per contra, learned standing counsel respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioners were engaged into services by an order of appointment dated 21.11.2017 issued by respondent No. 8 which is an outsourcing agency. The appointment of the petitioners is purely temporary and it is liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. The learned standing counsel further submits that on a complaint lodged with the District Collector dated 07.05.2018 by the aggrieved persons that the petitioners got appointment by producing some fake experience certificates, a notice dated 09.07.2018 was issued to the petitioners requiring them to attend an enquiry on 10.07.2018. During enquiry, it was found that the petitioners furnished fake experience certificates, which clearly shows that the petitioners are not at all eligible for the initial outsourcing appointment of Community Organisers. The learned standing counsel contends that as the appointment of the petitioners was on outsourcing basis through an outsourcing agency and the payment of wages to them was made through respondent No. 8, there is no direct employer-employee relationship between any of the respondent authorities and the petitioners. Further, the letters of appointment of the petitioners were issued by the 8th respondent- outsourcing agency and said agency was informed for discontinuation of their services forthwith and hence, there is no need for any of the respondent authorities to issue any notice or any termination order in writing directly to the petitioners. As such, the petitioners cannot plead for the procedure as contemplated for a regular employee under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the CCA Rules 1991’) and the question of applicability of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court with regard to issuance of charge memo does not arise as no letter of appointment was issued to the petitioners directly by any of the respondent authorities. The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and hence it is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and hence it is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as Community Organisers by way of a direct recruitment notification issued by the respondent authorities and after satisfaction of the eligibility and experience of the petitioners, the respondent authorities selected them and accordingly, they were posted to work in respondent Nos. 5 to 7-municipalities, is sustainable, in view of the Rules framed for selection of the Community Organisers vide notification No. 1/2017 dated 31.03.2017. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 287 dated 30.08.2018 approving the Human Resource Policy for the MEPMA employees appended to this government order. It is only a direct recruitment by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that without issuing any notice and without issuing any proceedings and conducting proper enquiry, the petitioners are not allowed to continue their services which is against the principles of administrative law, is tenable, in view of the admission of the 3rd respondent in Para 9 of the counter affidavit that since the petitioners are the employees of the 8th respondent-outsourcing agency and the agency was informed for discontinuation of the services of the petitioners, they need not issue any notice, is nothing but high handed and arbitrary action of the respondent authorities. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that without considering the explanations/the material submitted by them, the respondent authorities are restraining the petitioners from attending their duties, is also sustainable, for the reason that having received the explanations/the material submitted by the petitioners, the respondent authorities should have passed final orders and without passing final orders, the petitioners cannot be restrained from attending their duties. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the oral termination of the services of the petitioners on stigmatic allegations without conducting proper enquiry is against the CCA Rules 1991 apart from the principles of administrative law, has to be considered. 6. The contention of the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the oral termination of the services of the petitioners on stigmatic allegations without conducting proper enquiry is against the CCA Rules 1991 apart from the principles of administrative law, has to be considered. 6. The contention of the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the petitioners got appointed basing upon fraudulent and fabrication documents and the enquiry conducted by the respondent authorities proved the same and since the petitioners were appointed by the 8th respondent-outsourcing agency, they were informed about discontinuation of the services of the petitioners and hence, there is no need of service of any notice on the petitioners, is not tenable, as it is against the principles of administrative law and it is nothing but high handed and arbitrary action of the respondent authorities. 7. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to permit the petitioners to attend their duties as Community Organisers, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the respondents are at liberty to conduct a proper enquiry as contemplated under the CCA Rules, 1991, after providing due opportunity to the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.