THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.30395 OF 2010 07-12-2010 Between: K.Ranganayakamma ……….Petitioner And The Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur District and others. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.30395 2010 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order rendered by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1682 of 2008 on the file of the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal has declined to exercise jurisdiction and dismissed the said O.A. upholding the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.A2/235/07, dated 20-12-2007, cancelling the deputation of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that initially, she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Z.P. High School, Yellamanda of Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District. Later she was selected as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II and transferred to Government Social Welfare Girls Hostel, Vinukonda, on deputation, as per the proceedings of the 1st respondent-Collector, Guntur, in Rc.No.A1/381/2001, dated 13-12-2002, for a period of one year. Again the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 01- 03-2004, extended the period of deputation for a further period of one year. While so, the Commissioner of Social Welfare, vide letter dated 09-10-2007, permitted the 1st and 2nd respondents to absorb the petitioner and six others as Hostel Welfare Officers in the existing vacancies available in the District. It is further stated that the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 19-12-2007, absorbed the other six S.G.Ts. as Hostel Welfare Officers. But, when the petitioner is waiting for the absorption orders, the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings, dated 20-12-2007, surrendering the petitioner to her parent department of Education on administrative grounds by stating that her performance is not satisfactory in maintenance of hostel. The operative portion of the proceedings dated 20-12-2007 reads as follows: “The performance of Smt. K.Ranganayakamma, Teacher, who is working as Hostel Welfare Officer (Gr.II), Govt. S.W. Girls Hostel, Muppalla, on deputation, is not satisfactory in maintenance of the Hostel and hence, she is hereby surrendered to her parent Department of Education on administrative grounds. On surrender to her parent Department, the individual is also relieved from the duties of H.W.O., SW Girls Hostel, Mupalla on the A.N. of 21-12-2007. On relief, she is directed to report before the Dist. Educational Officer, Guntur for further posting orders in Education Department. The District Educational Officer, Guntur is requested to issue necessary posting orders to the individual in the Education Department. Consequent on relief of Smt. K.Ranganayakamma, Teacher, the H.W.O, S.W.Girls Hostel, Vinukonda, is hereby kept in full additional charge of the post of H.W.O., SW Girls Hostel, Muppalla. The H.W.O., SW Girls Hostel, Vinukonda is directed to take complete charge of the post of H.W.O., SW Girls Hostel, Muppalla from Smt. K.Ranganayakamma, Teacher and submit a copy of the Charge list to the Dy. Director (S.W.), Guntur forthwith.” Only to deprive the right of petitioner for absorption, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned proceedings. She further stated that since she is continuing as Hostel Welfare Officer for nearly five years, she could also been absorbed as Hostel Welfare Officer. When there is a stigma attached to the applicant, it is necessary that an enquiry has to be conducted with proper notice to the petitioner. Without conducting any enquiry, the impugned proceedings were issued by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner requested the 1st and 2nd respondents to continue her in the existing vacancy. But no orders have been passed so far. Hence, she filed O.A.No.1682 of 2008 on the file of the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. holding that doctrine of stigma cannot be attached to cancellation orders of deputation and that the employee who is deputed has no right to continue in the borrowal department and the deputation can be cancelled at any time even before the expiry of its period. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and the learned Government Pleader for Services III and we have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy vehemently contended that it is no more a res intigra that, where there is a stigma attached, it is mandatory to conduct enquiry with proper notice to the delinquent employee. Further, the expression “not satisfactory” is certainly casts a stigma, as such, without putting the petitioner on notice, the 1st respondent cannot issue impugned proceedings. During the period of deputation, if her health is not good, it is always open for the respondents to recall her to the parent department. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja Vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation and Another[1] for consideration with regard to the discharge of an employee after expiry of probation period on ground of misconduct. The form of the order discharging him from service coupled with the background facts will be viewed as punitive in nature. 5. Now the point for consideration is that whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. 6. The main ground for cancellation of petitioner’s deputation is that she failed to maintain the hostel properly. Since there was an open drainage system in the hostel, it causes health hazards. The students’ health is being affected. Therefore, due to the performance of the petitioner is not satisfied to the respondent-authorities, she was surrendered to her parent department of Education. On surrender to her parent department, she was also relieved from the duties of Hostel Welfare Officer, S.W. Girls Hostel, Muppalla on the A.N. of 21-12-2007. On relief, she was directed to report before the District Educational Officer, Guntur for further posting orders in Education Department. However, she was transferred to an equivalent post as there is no difference in emoluments and cadre. Just she was deputed to a particular department, and again she has come back to the parent department. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case. 7. Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no question of illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal. We do not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated: 07-12-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR kvr [1] 2007 AIR SCW 6764