IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.9041 of 2011 Date: 11.07.2011 Between: Smt V. Padmavathi. .....Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., rep. By its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. ....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.9041 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in orally directing the petitioner not to attend the duties of Customer Service Provider (CSP), Srinagar village, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is working as Customer Service Provider (for short CSP) under the control and direction of the respondents having joined the service in the month of October, 2010 pursuant to the regular recruitment. The respondents have communicated to all the concerned Dwakra/Swayam Sahayaka Sangams through mails for appointment of CSPs. The minimum qualification to hold the post is 10th Class and should be a native of the village and should necessarily be a member of the Swayam Sahayaka Sangam. The written examination was conducted in the month of May, 2010 and she was successful in the written examination and pursuant to which she was sent for training in the month of October, 2010. None of the candidates selected as CSPs was given the appointment orders. Since, then the petitioner has been discharging her duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities without any remarks. The duties of the CSP are that to distribute the Pension amount, which is allotted by the 1st respondent through the organizations, which is deposited in Andhra Bank. In the present case, the petitioner has collected the amount from the M.D.O office i.e., SEEDS (Social Education and Economics Development Society) and thereafter she has to pay the amount to the beneficiaries identified by the 1st respondent and the said amount will be distributed to the identified persons after duly acknowledging the same to the handicapped, old aged and widows as directed by the respondents. All of a sudden, the 3rd respondent has orally directed the petitioner not to attend the office and prevented from discharging her duties from 26.3.2011 and when the petitioner asked for reasons for her oral termination, the 3rd respondent has not chosen to give any reasons and directed to go out of the office. At the time of appointment, the 3rd respondent has given a computer along with the Finger Print Scanner etc., which must be used at the time of distribution of amount and thereby the said data will be stored and the same would be sent to the respondents. Every act of the individual is through computer and there is no chance for mis-utilisation or misappropriation of the amount. Further, the finger print of the beneficiaries will be taken at the time of application itself and when the amount is disbursed, she has to place the finger on the scanner and thereafter the amount will be given. The 3rd respondent has taken away the system on the ground of servicing and on 26.3.2011, she was asked not to attend the duties. When a detailed procedure was adopted for recruiting the petitioner as CSP, the 3rd respondent has to issue a notice supported by reasons for her oral termination. Hence, this writ petition. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition and stated that in the present case, the appointment and removal authorities are necessary parties but the petitioner failed to add them as parties to the proceedings. An Audit report of 2008-09 and 2009-2010 which was submitted to the General Body show that the petitioner was utilized the Village Organisation Money worth Rs.1,44,542/- for her personal use. She herself admitted the alleged misappropriation in the General Body Meeting and she admitted that she would pay the misappropriated amount in eight equal installments. The Village Organisation General Body discussed the issue on priority and resolved to remove the petitioner from the Village Organisation and served a notice to her to repay the entire amount of misused in eight installments. The entire process of appointment, monitoring and termination of CSPs is under the control of the Andhra Bank through their business correspondent appointed by them. As such, the question of giving and taking the computer along with Card reader and Finger Print scanner by the Project Director, DRDA, Guntur does not arise. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without conducting any enquiry, she was terminated from the services of CSP and that none of the candidates selected was given appointment orders. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the CSP works were under the control of Andhra Bank and that the petitioner herself admitted that she has committed misappropriation of amount to a tune of Rs.44,000/- and the same has been placed before the General Body Meeting of Srinagar Gramaikya Sangham held on 13.12.2010 and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Though it is stated that no appointment order was given to the petitioner, as seen from the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it is clear that the CSP is under the control of Andhra Bank and that only the Correspondent is the Project Director of SEEDS and that the appointing or disciplinary authority is necessary parties. The petitioner has not stated any thing in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that she was appointed through the selection process by any one of the respondents herein. A specific plea has been taken by the respondents that the disciplinary authority or appointing authority are necessary parties to the proceedings, but the petitioner failed to implead them as parties. Therefore, in the absence of impleading the appointing authority or disciplinary authority as party to the proceedings, it cannot be decided as to whether the procedure followed by the disciplinary authority is correct or not in terminating the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU,J Date: 11th July, 2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.9041 of 2011 Date: 11.07.2011 Gk.