THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25362 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as In-charge Librarian by the A.P. Urdu Academy. He was posted in a Library of the Academy in Visakhapatnam, through order, dated 20.05.2000. Through office order, dated 16.07.2008, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the Academy passed an order, dated 26.05.2009, terminating the services of the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner resorted to several acts of misconduct and brought down the reputation of the Academy in the views of the public. Reference was made to an enquiry caused by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the report thereof, through Executive Director, APSMFC Limited, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner was held responsible for missing of books, worth Rs.1,25,000/- from the library and causing false propaganda against the Academy through press. He feels aggrieved by the order of removal. Petitioner contends that the respondents passed the impugned order as a vindictive measure and that it is violative of principles of natural justice. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. They take objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to them, the petitioner was purely a temporary employee and it is not necessary in law to conduct enquiry, or to issue a show cause notice for termination of such employees. Heard the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, and Sri A.M.Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed way back in the year 2000, as In-charge Librarian, may be on temporary basis. He continued as such till the year 2008, till the respondents placed him under suspension. There was no mention of any proposed enquiry. A perusal of the order, dated 26.05.2009, discloses that an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, at the request of the respondents. The report that was submitted by the Enquiry Officer was taken into account. Certain aspects become relevant in this regard. The disciplinary proceedings against an employee would commence, only with the issuance of show cause notice, or charge sheet. It is only when the explanation submitted by the employee is not found satisfactory, that the occasion to appoint an Enquiry Officer would arise. Even where it becomes imminent for an employer to conduct enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has to be appointed by itself. The question of requiring an outside agency to appoint an Enquiry Officer, that too, in the absence of show cause notice, or charge sheet, does not arise. In the instant case, the respondents faltered on both the aspects. Therefore, a serious flaw has crept into the impugned proceedings. Assuming that the services of the petitioner were purely temporary in nature, the respondents would have been justified, in case the termination was simply without imputing any acts of misconduct. The impugned order refers to several acts of misconduct. Once the acts of misconduct are attributed, holding of departmental enquiry becomes necessary. The respondents cannot take shelter under the plea that the appointment of the petitioner is purely temporary. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 26.05.2009 is set aside. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith. It shall be open to them to initiate disciplinary proceedings, or to place him under suspension in accordance with law, after he is reinstated. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any back wages, shall be considered after the respondents take a decision in the matter of initiating any proceedings against him and the result thereof. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21.12.2010. GJ