THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition Nos. 4723 of 1999 and 8112 of 2001 Dated: 06.04.2010 Between: E.Rama Mohan Rao … Petitioner And The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Girijan co-operative Corporation, Visakhapanam and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition Nos. 4723 of 1999 and 8112 of 2001 C O M M O N O R D E R : The petitioner herein was appointed as a cleaner in Girijan Co- operative Corporation, Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Corporation”) in the year 1976. Subsequently, he was promoted as salesman in the year 1983. While working as such, by order dated 14.01.1999, passed by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, the petitioner was reverted to the lower cadre permanently on the ground of irregularities in making the purchases in the shandy of the Corporation. That apart, the petitioner was also directed to remit a sum of Rs.68,700/- together with interest towards pecuniary loss suffered by the Corporation. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 14.01.1999, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4723 of 1999. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the Corporation initiated de novo enquiry on the very same alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner vide proceedings dated 07.11.2000. Challenging the said action of the Corporation, W.P.NO.8112 of 2001 has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the order of reversion which is impugned in W.P.No.4723 of 1999 was arbitrary and illegal since the said order was passed without holding a regular departmental enquiry in terms of the regulations relating to the services of the Corporation. The fact that the order of reversion was not preceded by any regular departmental enquiry could not be disputed by the respondent- Corporation in the counter affidavit. In identical circumstances, this Court allowed W.P.No.3178 of 1999 by order dated 18.02.1999 thereby setting aside the order impugned in the said writ petition and leaving it open to the respondents to hold a regular departmental enquiry following due process of law. As could be seen, the petitioner herein is also similarly situated. Since the impugned order dated 14.01.1999 imposing a major penalty of reversion was passed without holding a departmental enquiry, the said order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. So far as the proceedings impugned in W.P.No.8112 of 2001 is concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation that though a de novo enquiry was sought to be initiated, the same could not be proceeded with in view of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. Hence, no adjudication on merits is necessary in W.P.No.8112 of 2001. Accordingly, the order passed by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation dated 14.01.1999 is hereby set aside. In the result, W.P.No.4723 of 1999 is allowed and W.P.No.8112 of 2001 is disposed of leaving it open to the Corporation to proceed with the enquiry pursuant to the proceedings dated 07.11.2000 following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 06.04.2010 KLP