THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 9697 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent no.2 in issuing orders vide proceedings R.C. No.7/BC-B/2007, dated 11.03.2011, whereunder and whereby services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. The brief facts are, the petitioner was initially appointed as Daily Wage Worker in the first respondent corporation, and thereafter vide order dated 13.4.2009, he was appointed as Junior Assistant temporarily on consolidated basis. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 issued the impugned proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. 3. The respondent filed counter stating that the appointment of the petitioner is not a regular employment and was made in violation of Government Orders as the orders in vogue at the time of his appointment prohibit making of appointment on temporary basis, and hence, no notice was issued to him before terminating his services. It is further stated in the counter that enquiry was initiated against one Sri J.P.Tandon, the then Assistant Executive Officer, office of the District Backward Classes Service Co-operative Society Limited, Guntur, for the various irregularities committed by him, including the irregular appointment of the petitioner, and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without conducting any enquiry, services of the petitioner were terminated, and in support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in M.Ramana Kumari & Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur & Ors.,[1] wherein it is held thus: (para 7) “The Commissioner, Endowments Department though competent to rectify the anomalies, if any, committed by his subordinates, the procedure required is to give an opportunity to the affected parties for submitting their explanation. Though such procedure may not be available in the Act or under the rules framed thereunder, but the rule of the principles of natural justice is an accepted principle to be followed before initiating any steps against a particular employee. Keeping this principle in view, I am of the opinion, though the appointments of these petitioners made by the then Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur are without authority as held by me, but if the respondents seek to terminate the services of these petitioners, they must give reasonable notice to the petitioners and hear them before contemplating such an action. On notice being issued to the petitioners by the respondents and explanation being filed, it would be open to the authorities concerned to take appropriate action according to law.” 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the entry of the petitioner into service is by way of backdoor method and therefore the question of issuing notice before termination of services is not necessary, and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. No doubt, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner states that even the persons who are appointed without any authority, notice has to be given before terminating their services. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows: “Whereas in the reference 2nd read above, the VC & Managing Director, A.P. Backward lasses Coop. Finance Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad has informed that the appointment made to Sri B.Anand Kumar, as Junior Asst. on temporary basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.4,900/- P.M. is contrary to the orders of Government. Further as per the Government orders, no temporary appointment shall be made and there was prohibition of the same under act-2 1994. There is no provision for utilization services any person on consolidated pay and that as per the Government Orders.” The above order is not in dispute. It is not stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that a temporary appointment can be made or that there was no prohibition in making appointment or that there was a provision to appoint a person on contract basis. When the facts are admitted, it is an empty formality to issue a notice. In Vivekanand Sethi v. Chairman J and K Bank Ltd.,[2] it is held by the Apex Court as follows: (para 22) “The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. [See Dr. Gurjeewan Garewal (Mrs.) v. Dr. Oumitra Dash (Mrs.) and Others] The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. [See State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh] and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. S.G. Koturappa and Anr.]” Therefore, when the appointment itself is not in accordance with rules applicable to the respondent- Corporation, which is not in dispute, issuance of notice does not arise before termination of his services. In such circumstances, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, this court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, principles of natural justice need not be followed. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 08.06.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 9697 OF 2011 08.06.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 9697 OF 2011 08.06.2011 Between: B.Anand Kumar …Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh B.C. Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd. & others …Respondents [1] 1998 (2) ALD 110 [2] (2005) 5 SCC 337