THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 33449 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Service-II and Sri.V.Mallik, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. The writ petition is filed after obtaining the leave of this Court since the 1st petitioner, the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department was not impleaded as party to O.A.No. 7318 of 2009. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Judgement dt. 21.6.2010 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal despite noticing that the State was not impleaded as party to the lis and only the Head of the Department and D.M.H.O. were made parties, since the applicant had retired from service, the competent authority to pass final orders on disciplinary proceedings is the State (under the provisions of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980); the Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the issue presented in the O.A. and dismissed the same. Though the Tribunal declined the applicant’s prayer for invalidating the departmental enquiry initiated against him, directed the 1st petitioner to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Sri.V.Mallik, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent contends that since the 1st petitioner/State was aware of the order passed by the Tribunal and had also addressed a letter dt. 28.7.2010 to the applicant enclosing a copy of the inquiry report of the Regional Director, Mecial & Health Services and called upon the petitioner to submit his written explanation for taking further action in the matter, no interference is called for. The above contention urged on behalf of the 1st respondent is stated to be rejected. Article 300 of the Constitution elucidates clearly and unequivocally as to how the State should be impleaded when relief is sought against it. Section 79 of the C.P.C. reiterates this Constitutional position. Several decisions of the Supreme Court also reiterate this principle. Nevertheless, repeated instances are brought to the notice of this Court where litigants do not recognize the juristic persona of the State and only state actors are impleaded as party respondents. In the case on hand, the 1st respondent/applicant sought the relief of invalidation of a protracted disciplinary enquiry. Since the applicant was an employee of the State, he was required to implead the State represented by appropriate authority as a party respondent in the O.A. but failed to do so. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Tribunal dt. 21.6.2010 in O.A.No. 7318 of 2009 is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed. The Tribunal may proceed to adjudicate the O.A. de novo, if the applicant takes steps to implead the proper and necessary parties. If the State of Andhra Pradesh is not impleaded as a party respondent to the O.A. the Tribunal shall dismiss the O.A. on that singular ground. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dt. 20.12.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 33449 of 2011. Dt. 20.12.2011.