Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Konda Leelarani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 August, 2024
APHC010363012024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 18319/2024
Between:
Konda Leelarani ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SAI SURYA TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P HEMA CHANDRA (SC FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP LTD)
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
Rule Nisi.
Call for records.
Notice returnable in four (04) weeks.
________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
I.A.No.1 of 2024:-
Heard Sri Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for the
respondents.
The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings issued by
respondent No.5 vide No.P.Admn.48(1)/Contract emp/2022-23, dated
05.01.2024 (Ex.P1), whereby terminating the petitioner from service on the
ground of misconduct, dishonesty in connection with Corporation property and
negligence of work and violated CDA regulations of APSCSCL.
The writ petition was adjourned on 21.08.2024 and the same was
adjourned at the request of learned Standing Counsel to get instructions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that terminating the
petitioner on the ground of misconduct, dishonesty and negligence at work,
prima facie stigmatic and hence show-cause notice ought to have been
issued. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of
Dr.Vijayakumaran C.P.V v. Central University of Kerala and Others 1 and
A.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its Chairman
and Managing Director and another v. B.Nandeswar Rao2.
Learned Standing Counsel on instructions, would submit that the
petitioner's termination is not arbitrary and it was based on a formal and
thorough investigation that uncovered negligence in accepting substandard
rice stocks, thereby endangering the quality of supplies distributed under the
PDS. He also would submit that negligence falls under the purview of
misconduct under Section 24(d) of the APSCSCL's CDA Regulations.
In A.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited, rep. by its
Chairman and Managing Director and another v. B.Nandeswar Rao, the
(2020) 12 SCC 426
(2014) 5 ALD 670 (DB)
Division Bench of the Composite High Court observed at para No.10 as
follows:
"It is true that unlike an employee, who is appointed on regular
basis, the services of an employee appointed for a fixed tenure can be
brought to an end without the necessity of conducting a detailed
departmental enquiry. Much, however, would depend upon the nature
of blot left upon the person while terminating the contract.
Notwithstanding the fact that the appointment was for a fixed term, if
the employer intends to brand the employees as inefficient or to
attribute misconduct, the conducting of enquiry becomes essential."
Case at hand, the petitioner was terminated from the service on the
ground of misconduct, dishonesty and negligence at work, without issuing any
show-cause notice.
Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings issued
by respondent No.5 vide No.P.Admn.48(1)/Contract emp/2022-23, dated
05.01.2024 (Ex.P1), is hereby suspended.
________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
TVN
