P.SUDHARSHAN BABU Vs. GOVT. OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent in R.C. No. A1/4615/2011 dtd. 5/8/2012. The Petitioner's appointment as a record assistant was terminated w.e.f 5/8/2012.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Record Assistant in the office of the 4th respondent/Sri Bramarambha Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam on compassionate grounds on 30/7/2002. The petitioner married girl of his choice and the marriage was solemnized on 2/10/2010 in a Cathedral Pastrorate Church, at Nandyal of Kurnool District. A complaint was filed before Lokayuktha, Hyderabad, vide complaint No.1104/2011/B2 complaining that Rule 3 of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servant Service Rules, 2000 is violated as the petitioner concealed his religion at the time of employment on compassionate grounds. The Hon'ble Lokayukta vide orders dtd. 21/3/2012 in complaint no 1104/2011/B2 directed the concerned authority to conduct an enquiry and submit the action taken report. The 4th respondent addressed a letter dtd. 16/5/2012 to the petitioner, vide RC.No.A1/4615/2011, calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 23/5/2012 at 11.00AM in the chamber of Assistant Executive Officer.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his explanation that he has not concealed his religion and that his caste and school leaving certificate issued by the competent authorities revealed his caste as Indian, Hindu, Mala, Scheduled Caste Community. Though the enquiry also revealed that the petitioner filed two different cases against the employees of 4th respondent/Devasthanam complaining that he was abused in the name of caste and two different crimes were registered. Those crimes after investigation done by the Officer concerned were closed as false. These issues are not relevant to the facts of the case, however the same cannot be brushed aside by the employer while dealing with delinquent employee. The conduct of the employee and the approach of the employee towards his co employees is essentially required to be considered in any enquiry against the said employee. The petitioner submitted his explanation and detailed enquiry was conducted by the competent authority, several documents and evidences were considered by the Enquiry Officer and the authority has found the petitioner is liable for action for non compliance of Rule 3 of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments office holders and Servant Service Rules, 2000.