THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.9084 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed in the Kavali Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., as Mechanic. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 30-11-2002, by the Depot Manager, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 19-02-2003, imposing the punishment of deferment of increment, for a period of six months, without cumulative effect. Departmental appeal filed against the order, before the Divisional Manager; was rejected. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent, with a request to refer the dispute, that arose out of the order of punishment dated 19- 02-2003, to the Labour Court, for adjudication. Conciliation was undertaken, and it failed. As regards the reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, the 1st respondent issued letter dated 23-07-2007, informing the petitioner that since he had already retired from service in the year 2003 itself, it is not feasible to accede to the request. It was also observed that there does not exist any relationship of employer and employee, between the petitioner and the A.P.S.R.T.C. Petitioner challenges the letter dated 23-07-2007, issued by the 1st respondent. Heard Sri P. Gopal Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Labour, and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for the machinery, and prescribes the procedure, for resolution of industrial disputes, between the workman and employers. While in some cases, the aggrieved party can directly approach the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, such as under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, as regards the other matters, a reference has to be made by the appropriate Government, to the Tribunal or Court. Since the grievance of the petitioner did not fit into Section 2-A(2) of the Act, he invoked the machinery under Section 10 of the Act. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to, on the ground that long before the Conciliation Officer reported failure, the petitioner retired from service. It may be true that an adjudication, under the Act, can take place even where an individual is out of employment. In fact, the cases, in relation to dismissal, removal and retrenchment fall into that category. However, where the employment itself has come to an end, in the usual course, and not on account of any acts or omissions, complained against the employer, reference becomes untenable. One thing, which needs to be mentioned here is that, if the process was initiated, when the relationship subsisted, the mere fact that the employee retired thereafter, cannot render the reference untenable. In the instant case, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30-06-2006, and his appeal before the Divisional Manager was dismissed on 02-09-2006. He initiated conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, only in December, 2006. Hence, there was no basis for the petitioner to seek reference of the dispute to the Labour Court. Apart from that, the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any genuine grievance. The only punishment imposed against him was, deferment of increment by six months, without cumulative effect. With the expiry of six months, the increment got restored, and no monetary loss had accrued to the petitioner. Once he has retired from service, even that punishment becomes insignificant, from the point of view of further promotions etc. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30-06-2008. Note L.R copy to be marked. (B/O)KO* THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4036 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India, the 1st respondent herein; on 01-10-1988 against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste. From April 1997 onwards, he was working at Bhakrapeta Branch of Kadapa District, and was placed Incharge of Gold Loan Accounts. It is stated that there were about 1100 gold loan accounts in that Branch. On 30-05-2003, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet, alleging that though he received a sum of Rs.8,000/-, remitted by M.Obaiah, to the credit of gold loan account No.AGL 14/432 and issued a receipt, he did not account for the said amount in the books of the Branch. The petitioner denied the allegation, and departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 06-01-2004, holding that the charge against the petitioner was not proved. Despite the same, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the 2nd respondent herein passed an order dated 19-02-2004, disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed a writ petition No.5404 of 2004, before this Court, challenging the order dated 19-02-2004. The writ petition was allowed on 02-12-2004; the order dated 19-02-2004 was set aside, and it was left open to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 23-03-2005, requiring the petitioner to explain within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why a different view on the findings of the Inquiry Officer be not taken, in view of the reasons mentioned in the notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation, on 11-04-2005. The 2nd respondent was not convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner, and vide memorandum dated 11-07-2005 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him, and proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner was given 14 days time, to explain as to why the said punishment shall not be inflicted. Opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the petitioner. He submitted a written representation and made oral submissions on the fixed date. The 2nd respondent ultimately passed an order dated 30-08-2005, imposing the punishment of dismissal, against the petitioner. An appeal preferred by the petitioner to the 1st respondent was rejected on 13-12-2005. Hence, this writ petition. Petitioner submits that the order of dismissal passed against him cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. He contends that except stating that he has deferred with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent did not state any reasons, in respect of his conclusions, while holding that the charge was proved. The record does not disclose that any counter-affidavit has been filed, on behalf of the respondents. Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.537 of 2008 ORDER: Sri Venkateswara University, the 1st respondent herein, issued advertisement dated 10-11-2006, inviting applications from candidates for appointment against vacancies of various posts in different departments. In the department of Zoology, 4 posts of Assistant Professors were notified, and one such post was reserved in favour of S.C. candidates. The petitioner passed M.Sc. Zoology, and was conferred with Ph.D. Degree. He belongs to S.C community. He submitted the application for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. The call letter dated 05-01-2007 was issued to him, intimating that the interview would be held on 08-02-2007. The interview was held at a subsequent date, viz., 08-03-2007. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were placed before the Executive Council, and ultimately through orders dated 03-07-2007, issued by the Registrar, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology, at University Post-graduate Centre, Kavali, in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-275-13,500, besides Dearness allowance and H.R.A. etc. The petitioner joined duty and was working as Assistant Professor, at P.G. Centre, Kavali. The Vice-Chancellor of the University issued proceedings dated 18-08-2007, in supersession of the proceedings of the Executive Council, as well as the order of appointment dated 03-07-2007, directing that the appointment of the petitioner shall be on the monthly pay of Rs.8,000/- with permissible allowance, and for a period not exceeding one year, as per Section 49 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims to have approached the Vice-Chancellor, to withdraw the proceedings dated 18-08-2007, stating that his appointment, on regular basis, was approved by the Executive Council, and there was no basis for treating it as, for one year. Stating that he did not get any response from the respondents, he filed this writ petition, assailing the proceedings dated 18-08-2007. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed, stating that the selection of the petitioner was not against an existing and approved vacancy, and the mistake that has crept, while issuing the order of appointment; was rectified through the impugned proceedings. Heard Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner submitted application for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology, in response to the employment notification dated 10-11-2006, issued by the University. On the basis of evaluation of his merit and performance at interview, the Selection Committee selected him, and the same was approved by the Executive Council. The proceedings dated 03-07-2007, issued by the University, read as under: “Dr.K. Chennaiah temporarily appointed as Assistant Professor, against the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Zoology, S.V.U. Post Graduate Centre, Kavali, in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500, besides Dearness Allowance, HRA etc., at the University rates. The above appointment is subject to the result of the W.P.No.1717 of 2007 pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. He is required to enter in to an agreement of service with the University in the prescribed form on a non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs.100/- within a month from the date of his joining. The appointment is also subject to Statues, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations of the University that are in force and that may come into force from time to time. The appointee is governed by new pension scheme already in force as applicable for all the new entrants vide orders 2nd read above. The appointee should report himself for duty to the Special Officer, SVU Post Graduate Centre, Kavali, on or after 03-07-2007 but not later than 02-08-2007, failing which the offer of appointment stands cancelled”. The proceedings referred to above, partake the character of a regular order of appointment, against a clear vacancy. The petitioner joined duty and was working at the P.G. Centre, Kavali. About one- and-half months later, the Vice-Chancellor issued an order, on 18-08- 2007, as under: “In supersession of the proceedings 1st and the memo 2nd read above, and in pursuance of the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. K. Chennaiah is temporarily appointed as Assistant Professor, in the Department of Zoology, S.V.U. Post Graduate Centre, Kavali, on Rs.8000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500, besides Dearness Allowance, HRA etc., at the University rates, for a period not exceeding one year as per Section 49 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991. The offer of the above appointment is strictly for one year from the date of joining i.e. 03-07-2007 afternoon, and terminable at any time without assigning any reasons thereon. He is required to acknowledge receipt of the proceedings”. The question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the order dated 18-08-2007 can be sustained in law ? The first aspect is, about the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor. It has already been pointed out that the proceedings dated 03-07-2007 were issued by the Executive Council of the University. Under the Act, it is the competent Authority. Though the Vice-Chancellor happens to be a member of the Executive Council, an independent Executive Authority, in his own way; he is not conferred with the power to supersede the orders passed by the Executive Council. If the order dated 03-07-2007 was incorrect or untenable, on account of a reason, the only authority that could have rectified was, the Executive Council. Though it is stated that the Executive Council was rectified the proceedings, dated 18-08-2007, issued by the Vice-Chancellor, the initial material irregularity and lack of jurisdiction cannot be rectified. The second aspect is, as to the procedure, that is followed in issuing the impugned proceedings. Assuming that the proceedings were issued by a Competent Authority, the rights, that have accrued to the petitioner, under the order dated 03-07-2007, could not have been taken away, except by conducting an inquiry, or issuing a show cause notice, duly indicating the reasons for the proposed action. Nothing of that sort has taken place. The impugned proceedings were issued in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in law, and they are accordingly set aside. Consequently, the petitioner shall be continued as Assistant Professor in Zoology, in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-275-13,500, under the orders dated 03-07-2007. It is, however, made clear that in case the appointment of the petitioner is found to be untenable, or incorrect, it shall be open to the respondents to take necessary action, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30-06-2008. KO THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.12970 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners herein were appointed as Consultants in B.Ed. Programme, vide orders dated 28-10-2005 and 17-02-2006, respectively, for a period of three months. The same arrangement is said to have been continued thereafter. The 2nd respondent initiated steps for regular appointment of Assistant Professors in various subjects, including Education, and issued Employment Notification dated 10-01-2008. The petitioners applied for the posts of Assistant Professors in Education. On finding that the qualifications possessed by them are adequate, they were interviewed on 13th and 14th June 2008. The petitioners challenge the selection process, undertaken by the 2nd respondent, on the ground that the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education, the 4th respondent. Respondents filed a counter-affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that the Selection Committee was constituted strictly in accordance with the guidelines. Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the National Council has issued clear directions as to the composition of the Selection Committee, and the one, constituted by the 2nd respondent, does not accord with it. He contends that though the members of the Selection Committee prescribed as experts, the particulars of the said individuals disclosed that their expertise is in different field of study. Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the University, on the other hand, submits that the particulars of the Selection Committee, that are placed before this Court, clearly disclose that the Committee is constituted as per the Rules. The petitioners were called for interview for the posts of Associate Professors in Education. Even according to the petitioners, the selection committee must comprise of a nominee of the Affiliating Body, i.e. the University; subject expert of the University; nominee of the State Government, and the Authorities of the University, respectively. In the instant case, the University Authority is making appointments. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court, the list of members of the Selection Committee. It discloses that the Vice-Chancellor of the University; a nominee of the Government; three subject experts; Dean, Faculty of Education, Head, Department of Education, and a representative of State Teachers’, comprised of it. Admittedly, three Professors, who were drawn as subject experts, are from the Department of Education from different Universities. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Professors were from Physical Science & Mathematics; Biological science & English; Physical Science & English. However, it is to be noted that for the purpose of selection of Assistant Professors, it is the talent, in the field of education, that is to be assessed, and not in the other subjects, such as, Physics, English, etc. The norms issued by the 4th respondent do not provide for such an arrangement. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30-06-2008. KO THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2058 of 2008 ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents submit that the subject-matter of the writ petition is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 09-04-2008 in Writ Petition No.2412 of 2006. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the Award dated 02-07-2007, in I.D.No.38 of 2003, and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, for fresh disposal. It shall be open to the parties to place such material, as they intend to, before the Labour Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-07-2008. KO THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1877 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Lecturer in Political Science through proceedings dated 12-11-1986, issued by the 3rd respondent-Institution. Post-graduate section was started in the Political Science Department of the 3rd respondent-Institution. The petitioner was selected as a Part-Time Faculty, and was issued order of appointment dated 11-12-1987. The 3rd respondent discontinued the petitioner vide orders dated 04-08-2004. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the petitioner, who appeared as party in person, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The appointment of the petitioner, be it, in the under- graduate or post-graduate sections; was on part-time basis. The only reason mentioned in the proceedings dated 04-08-2004 is, that there is no teaching workload, since only one student each, was studying in previous and final years of M.A. Political Science. The course itself was wound-up. With a view to explore the possibility of continuing the petitioner as Part-Time Lecturer, at least in undergraduate level, this Court required the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent to ascertain the facts. It is represented that even the undergraduate course in B.A., with the optional of Political Science, as one of the options, was closed. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30-06-2008. KO THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.13777 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are working as Conductors and Drivers in the Tuni Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. All of them were issued show cause notices dated 18-02-2008, alleging that on account of the lightening strike, resorted to by them, on 22-11-2007, the Corporation suffered loss to the tune of Rs.3,77,018/-, and they were required to show cause, as to why the proportionate amount shall not be recovered from their salaries. Petitioners submitted individual explanations. Not being satisfied with the same, the 3rd respondent passed individual final orders dated 23-04-2008, directing recovery of the corresponding amount from the salaries of the petitioners. The said orders are challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The workers union is said to have called for a lightening strike on account of the death of one of the employees, attributing the cause of the death to certain acts and omissions on the part of the Authorities of the Depot. Individual show cause notices were issued, alleging that the lightening strike has resulted in loss to the Corporation. Thereafter, final orders were passed, indicating the amount to be recovered from the petitioners, in installments. The A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ Service Regulations provide for right of appeal to the employees. While this Court can only examine the orders, imposing punishment from a limited perspective, the Appellate Authority would have greater amount of freedom, not only in examining the correctness of the impugned orders, but also in granting the reliefs. It is in the interest of the petitioners, that such a remedy is availed. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal to both the concerned authorities. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30-06-2008. KO THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4319 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Conductor in the Shadnagar Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was removed from service on disciplinary grounds, in the year 1992, and was reinstated, on the basis of an Award passed by the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.785 of 1993. The petitioner felt that the fixation of pay was not properly done in his case, and that he was denied promotion to a higher post. He made certain representations also, for extension of the benefit. He submits that his request was not acceded to, by the respondents. The petitioner submitted applications dated 07-08-2006 and 4-11-2007 to the 3rd respondent, with a request to furnish certified, or xerox copies of P-Case Service Register, including the details of fixation of pay, with effect from 1996. His grievance is that no action is taken on the representations. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. What is pleaded for by the petitioner is nothing, but the information, in relation to his own service particulars in the Corporation. At a time when citizens are conferred with the right to seek information, in relation to highly sensitive matters also, under the Right to Information Act, the request made by the petitioner, as regards his service particulars, cannot be treated as objectionable, in any manner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to furnish the particulars, prayed for by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-07-2008. KO THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.17305 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The petitioner was appointed as a Messenger in the Kalyandurg Branch of Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, the respondent herein. On finding that he held requisite qualifications, he was entrusted with the duties of Cashier, by paying additional remuneration. A sum of Rs.15 lakhs was drawn by the Branch Manager of Kalyandurg, from the Head Office on 31-08-2004, for disbursement to the beneficiaries of Crop Insurance Scheme. However, the amount was not paid to the beneficiaries. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, and on the basis of the findings therein, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, on 27-07-2005. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted a report dated 24-08-2005. The Appointing Authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Ultimately through proceedings dated 29-06-2006, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Petitioner submits that he is not at all responsible for the deposit of the collection amount of Rs.15 lakhs, and in the proceedings initiated under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’), the then Manager and another Messenger were held responsible for it. He contends that a totally defective procedure was effected in the domestic inquiry, and that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself. An objection is raised as to the nature of punishment, pleading that termination of service does not find place in the Service Regulations. On behalf of the respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed, opposing the case of the petitioner. It is stated that a domestic inquiry was conducted by appointing an Inquiry Officer, and that the petitioner has participated in it. It is stated that since the petitioner made a representation to the effect that he was not given an opportunity, the then Person-in-Charge, asked another official to verify the record and examine the plea of the petitioner, in the context of lack of opportunity, and on that count, it cannot be said that successive Inquiry Officers were appointed. It is also stated that the petitioner has, in