THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 16504 of 2010 Dated: 6-7-2010 Between: The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Women Development Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare Dept., Hyderabad and others …Petitioners and R.Bala Prasad and another …Respondents ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The State and two other official respondents impeach the order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 11-9-2009 in O.A.No. 6771 of 2007, herein. The 1st respondent filed the O.A. impleading the petitioners 2 and 3 herein as the respondents. The O.A. was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking a declaration that continuing inquiry into all disciplinary cases relating to the years 1999 to 2005 by the Commissioner of Inquiries by the order of the State Government in G.O.Rt.No. 138, Women Development and Child Welfare dated 2-5-2006 and further orders in G.O.Rt.No. 364 dated 29-11-2008 as arbitrary; that the cause of action for such disciplinary enquiries has abated; that there is a waiver of disciplinary power in view of the inordinate delay in conducting the inquiries and there are several procedural errors in initiating the several disciplinary proceedings. Though the orders of the State Government in G.O.Rt.No. 138 and 364, Women Development and Child Welfare dated 2-5-2006 and 29-11-2008 respectively were challenged in O.A.No. 6771 of 2007, the 1st respondent did not choose, either by design or ignorance to implead the State in its juristic persona. The 1st respondent merely impleaded the 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein. By the order dated 11-9-2009, the Tribunal while declining to quash the charge memos (as prayed by the 1st respondent herein) observed that since disciplinary enquiries against the 1st respondent were pending for about seven years i.e., since 2002, the respondents should conclude these disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the charges levelled against the 1st respondent shall stand abated. The 1st respondent was directed to cooperate with the Enquiry Officer. The State, in this writ petition filed with leave, is aggrieved singularly by that portion of the judgment of the Tribunal which declares that if the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within three months from the date of receipt of the order, the charges levelled against would stand dissolved. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners states that the process of enquiry by the Commissioner of Inquiries into all the charges has now been concluded and that a show-cause notice has been issued to the 1st respondent proposing the penalty of a 50 per cent cut in pension and gratuity, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980; that the 1st respondent has responded to the show-cause notice and the matter has been referred to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for its opinion, as warranted under the applicable legal regime. In the light of the view we are taking as to maintainability of O.A.No. 6771 of 2007 as framed and instituted by the 1st respondent, we are not inclined to pronounce upon the rationality of the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in declaring that the disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent would abate if such proceedings are not concluded within the period stipulated by the Tribunal. The 1st respondent in the O.A. specifically challenged orders of the State Government in G.O.Rt.Nos. 138 and 364, Women Development and Child Welfare dated 2-5-2006 and 29-11-2008 respectively. These are orders issued by the State in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. The 1st respondent does not in the O.A. assert a grievance in respect of his employment under the Principal Secretary to the Government or the Director of Juvenile Welfare but claims to be employed in the Civil Service of the State and amenable to the disciplinary architecture under Article 311 of the Constitution. Since he is seeking relief in the context of his public employment as an employee of the State of A.P., and particularly since he was challenging two orders of the State Government, he was required to implead the State, which is a proper and necessary party to the lis. The State as a juristic persona under the Constitution has to be reflected in a lis as such either as the State of Andhra Pradesh or the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Principal Secretary to the Government does not constitute the State of Andhra Pradesh. He is a designated officer under the State who cannot be exalted to the status of the State. Impleading the Principal Secretary to the Government and the Director of Juvenile Welfare instead of the State amount to impleading the proper and necessary party and any relief granted by the Tribunal cannot be enforced against the State. It is a matter of concern that the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State before the Tribunal had also not chosen to point out this fatal infirmity in the institution of the O.A. by the 1st respondent perhaps on the misconception that the Principal Secretary to the Government and the Director constitute the State of Andhra Pradesh, an assumption that is fallacious. On the aforesaid analysis, O.A.No. 6771 of 2007 as framed and instituted without impleading the State of Andhra Pradesh as a respondent is not maintainable and the judgment dated 11-9-2009 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 6771 of 2007 cannot be sustained. On this analysis, the order dated 11-9-2009 in O.A.No. 6771 of 2007 is set aside, O.A.No. 6771 of 2007 is also dismissed as not maintainable without impleading the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party. However and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the 1st respondent herein is granted liberty to institute an O.A. in respect of the grievances presented in O.A.No. 6771 of 2007 by impleading the proper and necessary parties in the context of the relief to be sought in such an application. When and if filed such an O.A. shall be considered on its own merits. The writ petition is allowed as above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 6th July, 2010. GRR