P. LALITHA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

(2.) Heard Mr. M. Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The facts in these writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore W.P.(AT) No.763 of 2021 is taken as lead case and the facts therein are referred to for convenience. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis by the District Selection Committee in the year 2003. Subsequently the contractual service of the petitioner was considered for absorption w.e.f 20/1/2014 as Panchayat Secretary Gr.IV by the competent authority and since then she is working as regular employee. While discharging her duties, the then M.P.D.O., M. Suresh, who was harassing the petitioner and other Panchayat Secretaries working the said Mandal in order to avoid complications insisted to endorse for counter signatures by exerting political pressures upon the petitioner, for which, the petitioner and others have refused, and thus, subjected to untold harassment, and as a result of which, one Smt P.Satyavani, who committed suicide attempt at the behest of the irregularities said to have committed by the then 2nd respondent. It is further stated that oncoming to know the complaint made by the petitioner and others the then 2nd respondent is continued to harass them. Therefore, the petitioner and others went on mass C.L on 28/12/2015 and on the assurance given by the District Collector, the petitioner and others were reported to duty on 31/12/2015 and attended for their duties. It is further stated that as the then 2nd respondent belongs to SC community, the petitioner and others affrayed with SC/STs Atrocities Act, were forcibly go on mass and common C.L. on 12/4/2016 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer and District Panchayat Officer, Kadapa w.e.f. 13/4/2016. Accordingly, some of the officers who were received the above letter have assured to forward to the competent authority for sanction. But surprisingly the 2nd respondent office has returned the regd. Cover stating that 15/4/2016 was holiday, 16/4/2016 he was in camp and from 17/4/2016 to 21/4/2016 the office is "Door Locked". It clearly shows that the action of the 2nd respondent is highly deliberate and illegal. Such being the position, the 1st respondent has ordered preliminary enquiry, and the then 2nd respondent was directed to went on leave and the petitioner and others were directed to join duty by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, they were reported to duty on 27/4/2016. While so, the 1st respondent has issued impugned proceedings dtd. 31/10/2016 treating period from 13/4/2016 to 24/4/2016 as "Dias-non" by invoking Rule-4(1) of C.A.A Rules read with F.R. 18 without giving any opportunity or notice. Challenging he same, the present writ petition has been filed.