LAWS(APH)-2012-9-112

VIJAYA VISAKHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE MINORITIES COMMISSION

Decided On September 11, 2012
Vijaya Visakha District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Andhra Pradesh State Minorities Commission Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, seeks a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent, Andhra Pradesh State Minorities Commission, from proceeding, further, in furtherance of its proceedings in Lr. No. 109/MC.II(1)/99-4, dated 25.05.2001 and, consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to drop the said proceedings initiated on the representation of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent herein was an employee in the petitioner-Society and he was terminated from service, by way of disciplinary measure, vide proceedings No. 2488-B1/97, dated 20.02.1999. The allegation against him was that he was a habitual absentee. In the disciplinary proceedings, enquiry officer was appointed and when the 2nd respondent attributed his absence to some personal grounds, the enquiry officer held him guilty. In spite of the same, no action has been taken. Still, thereafter, as there was no improvement, and, on some grounds, charge memo bearing No. 2488-B1-97, dated 05.09.1998, was issued. The charge framed against the 2nd respondent was that he was unauthorizedly absent from February, 1998 to August, 1998. Dissatisfied with the explanation offered by him, enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the charge framed against him is held proved. Thereafter, further show-cause notice was issued and his services were terminated by way of dismissal.

(2.) As against the order of dismissal, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal to the Board of Directors and the Board; by its decision dated 21.05.1999 confirmed the decision of the General Manager. Thereafter, 2nd respondent made representation dated 09.03.1999 to several authorities, including the National Minorities Commission, A.P. State Legal Services Authority etc. Based on such representation, when the petitioner-Society was called upon to submit their stand, the orders of termination passed by the management of the petitioner-Society were informed to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority and also the National Minorities Commission. As no further action was taken, 2nd respondent submitted representation to the 1st respondent, A.P. State Minorities Commission on 15.05.1999. Initially, 1st respondent-Commission, vide letter No. 109/MC-II(I)/99-1, dated 02.08.1999, called for remarks on the representation filed by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent-Commission was apprised by the petitioner-Society. By letter dated 07.09.1999, the 1st respondent-Commission directed the petitioner-Society to take a lenient view by imposing minor punishment inasmuch as the charge of unauthorized absence, framed against the 1st respondent, is only for a period of two months. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner-Society got issued communication dated 25.10.1999 through their counsel. Thereafter, further records were called for, from the petitioner-Society, which had accordingly submitted the same. Consequently, further proceedings, dated 25.05.2001 in Lr. No. 109/MC.II (1)/99-4, which are impugned herein, are issued by the 1st respondent-Commission, to the petitioner society, which reads as under:

(3.) This writ petition is filed alleging that the 1st respondent-Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the service matters of the employees of the petitioner-Society. It is stated that such exercise of jurisdiction is beyond the scope of the A.P. State Minorities Commission Act, 1998. It is stated that, with regard to service matters, while it is open to the aggrieved parties to avail remedies either under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other applicable legislation, but, the 1st respondent-Commission cannot call for the records and interfere in the matter relating to termination of service, of the employee of the petitioner-Society, as a disciplinary measure.