WP/433/2020 of D.Md. Usman, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“….. to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly 31 respondent in not allowing the petitioner to attend to his duties as Sweeper Cum Night Watchman Water boy in the office of Deputy Commercial Tax Office1 Hindupur, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on respondents and offends Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to attend to his duties in the said post and pay him regular salary and past arrears with all attendant benefits and pass....” OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly 31 respondent in not allowing the petitioner to attend to his duties as Sweeper Cum Night Watchman Water boy in the office of Deputy Commercial Tax Office1 Hindupur, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on respondents and offends Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to attend to his duties in the said post and pay him regular salary and past arrears with all attendant benefits and pass....”

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper- Cum-Night Watchman (Water boy) in the deputy commercial Tax Office-1 in Hindupur vide proceedings in Rc.No.A/68/89 dated 29.06.1989. Since the date of appointment, he performed his duties with utmost satisfaction of his superiors and there are no adverse remarks from any corner and his services were appreciated by one and all. He is eking out his livelihood depending on his salary. It is stated that he has no other income to eke out his livelihood except the aforesaid job. His wife is mentally disordered person. The petitioner was getting salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The 2[nd]respondent appreciated his work and given character certificate to him as good. The 2nd respondent recommended his name to the contingent consultant for regularization as Sweeper -Cum- Night Watchman (Water boy) working in Commercial Taxes Department. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent addressed letter to the 2[nd]respondent vide his proceedings in Rc.No.A/99/2007 dated 10.06.2010 for regularization. The petitioner is working more than 28 years without adverse remarks. But to his utter surprise, the 3rd respondent is not allowing the petitioner to perform his duties without any reasons and without issuing any notice before not allowing him for attending to duties. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondents several times with a request to allow him to attend to duties. But the respondents did not take action. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred O.A No.3502 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and the same is pending. Now, in view of recent change in Government of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal ceased to function for obvious reasons unknown to him. Thus he could not get adjudication of his grievance. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for redressal of his grievance.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the petitioner was appointed as un-skilled part time contingent employee by proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur in Rc No:84-94-A, Dated 01.04.1994 on a monthly remuneration of a Rs.250/-. The wages of the petitioner is only Rs:250/- per month but not Rs:1500/- as stated by the petitioner. It is stated that, the applicant was getting salary of Rs:1500/- per month is also incorrect and false. It is further stated that, the petitioner is working as Sweeper - Cum Night Watchman (Water Boy) since 01-04-1994 and he stated that there was no adverse remarks on his side. But the assessee had indulged in corrupt practices and caught to the A.C.B officials during surprise check conducted on 09- 01-2017 at Kodikonda Border Check Post. As per the proceedings of the A.C.B. Officials, the applicant is acting as an agent/broker in the said check post and collecting mamuls from the driver/cleaner of the lorries passing through the check post and kept the mamuls amount in his bag for safe custody. It is further stated that, the petitioner has been terminated from his service and accordingly issued proceedings by the Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur vide RC No: A/99/2007, Dt: 28-08-2017 informing all the facts about the termination of the petitioner.

The petitioner was terminated from the date of proceedings l.e., 28-08-2017. Further, it is stated that, the petitioner has submitted O.Α No:3502/2017 before The Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and stated that the O.A is pending. In this connection it is stated that the applicant has withdrawn the original application filed before the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad Vide orders dated 29-03-2018. Therefore the OA filed by the petitioner was also withdrawn before the AP Administrative Tribunal and hence there are no merits in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3. It is stated that the petitioner's decision to withdraw the O.A. was based on procedural advice and does not affect the merits of his case. The petitioner maintains that the termination was arbitrary, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and infringes upon his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The absence of a formal inquiry or show- cause notice, the termination procedurally flawed. Therefore, prayed to allow the present writ petition.

5. Heard Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents.

6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents made in the petition and reply affidavit. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also reiterated the contents urged in the counter affidavit and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 01.04.1994 as Sweeper under contingencies in Commercial Tax Office, Hindpur under purely temporary basis. His monthly remuneration is Rs.250/-. To that effect, he filed Statement showing the details of Masalchi-cum-Night Watchman working in the Anantapur Division, as material paper at page No.11, wherein at Sl.No.5 his name was shown and the date of appointment was shown as 28.06.1994.

8. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that, as the petitioner/applicant is contingent employee on daily basis and the services of the applicant was stopped and the applicant was terminated by the 3[rd]respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.A/99/2007, dated 28.08.2017 with immediate effect and the said order was also received by the petitioner. It is also the contention of the respondents that the applicant/assessee had indulged in corrupt practices and caught to the ACB officials during surprise check conducted on 9.1.2017 at Kodikonda Border Check post and accordingly issued proceedings dated 28.8.2017.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court observed that, the 3[rd] respondent without issuing any notice and without following procedure contemplated under Law, has issued the termination proceedings to the petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the termination proceedings dated 28.08.2017 are illegal and arbitrary.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the termination proceedings in Rc.No.A/99/2007, dated 28.08.2017 issued by the 3[rd] respondent. Further, the 3[rd] respondent is directed to consider and re-examine the issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously, as possible. No order as to costs.

11. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Date : -12-2024

_______________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Gvl

Gvl

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION No: 433 of 2020

Date : 31.12.2024