IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 11972 of 1999 Between: VSandhya Rani D/o. Raja Rao, R/o.B-34, Venkateshwara Nilayam, Padamanabhanagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500028. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Managing Director A.P.Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd, Ameerpet , Hyderabad. 2 Govt of A.P Rep by its Secretary, Dept of Women's Development Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare Disabled Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the termination order vide Proceeding No.368/WCFC/PPU/98 Dt.27.5.99, issued by the Managing Director, APWCFC Ltd., is bad in law, and quashing the same and directing the said official to reinstatement in service with backwages and continuity of service, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BALAGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR.B.Malleswari Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP for Women & Child Welfare The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the termination order vide proceedings No.368/WCFC/PPU/98 dated 27.5.1999 issued by the Managing Director, APWCFC Ltd., as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages etc. There is no necessity to go into all the details. It is stated in the impugned order dated 27.5.1999 that the activities of the petitioner are in violation of Rule 17 of the Conduct Rules. It is also stated that on 13th May, 1999 the ‘Vaartha’ daily published a public statement made by the petitioner condemning the role of State Government, the arrest and torture of innocent people in the name of naxalities and warned the then Chief Minister that public will definitely teach him a lesson in the forth coming elections. The individual has violated Rule 17 of the A.P. Conduct Rules i.e., Criticism of policy or action of State Government or Central Government by making public utterances. Recording the same, the services of the petitioner were terminated while invoking the bye-law (26) Sub-Rule (14) of the Rules, without calling for any explanation or without issuing any prior notice. Thus, it appears that passing of the impugned order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also without following the procedure as established under law. In fact, the petitioner stated that she did not participate in the press conference and some other lady with the same name participated in the press conference and addressed the same. No notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 5.7.1999 in WPMP No.14629 of 1999, the petitioner was continued, however, thereafter, she left the organization. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the impugned order was a stigma on the petitioner and since the same was issued without following the principles of natural justice and the procedure established under law, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the impugned order. No costs. ___________ 25-03-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Managing Director A.P.Women's Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd, Ameerpet , Hyderabad. 2 Govt of A.P Rep by its Secretary, Dept of Women's Development Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare Disabled Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3.2CD copies