K PUSHPALEELA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No. 856 dated 12-11-1996 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, unconstitutional and set aside the same.

(2.) The petitioner has been appointed as an Asst. Govt. Pleader in A.P. Administrative Tribunal along with others vide G.O.Rt.No. 34, Law Department dated 16-1-1996. The petitioner assumed charge on 17-1-1996 and functioning as such. No doubt the petitioner complains that she was subjected to altogether a different treatment in the name of caste by some of the lady colleagues, practising in the Administrative Tribunal who belong to forward caste. She complains that she was subjected to insult and injury by their oblique references to caste to which the petitioner belongs. It is alleged that on 4-9-1996 the petitioner was insulted in the name of caste by one Smt. Revathi, an Advocate and the petitioner has informed to several Advocates that appropriate action shall be initiated against the said Advocate under the provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act but did not initiate any such action on the advice of some of the colleagues not to precipitate things. It is also alleged that the petitioner was beaten by the said Revathi and her friend when she was sitting in the ladies chamber. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent herein asked the petitioner to be present on 12-9-1996 in connection with the enquiry on the report said to have been given by Mrs. Revathi and accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent. The copy of the complaint said to have been filed by Mrs. Revathi was not supplied to the petitioner, but on the petitioner insisting for the same, a copy of the complaint was given to the petitioner and was again asked to appear on 18-9-1996 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded. Thereafter the petitioner received the impugned Memo terminating her services. The impugned G.O. reads as follows: "In his letter 2nd read above, the Advocate-General has stated that on 9-9-1996 he has received a complaint from Smt. P. Revathi, Advocate against Ms. K. Pushpa Leela, Assistant Government Pleader, stating that on 4-9-1996 she came to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal to file a O.A. around 2 O'clock and when she entered into the Ladies Chamber Ms. N. Pushpa Leela pounced on her and slippered her without provocation on her side and requested to enquire into the matter and take action against her, and he has transmitted the complaint to the Special Officer, Government Pleader's Office, Hyderabad for enquiry. The Special Officer, Government Pleader's Office has conducted an enquiry and sent a detailed report on 7-10-1996. Basing on the Enquiry Report, the Government have examined the matter in detail and decided to terminate the services of Ms. R. Pushpa Leela, Assistant Government Pleader, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad with immediate effect. The following notification will be published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette. NOTIFICATION Under rule 5 of the Executive Instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No. 57, Law, dated 16-3-1990, the Government hereby terminate the services of Ms. K. Pushpa Leela, Assistant Government Pleader, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad on payment of one month's remuneration in lieu of one month's notice with immediate effect. The Advocate-General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad is requested to send a fresh panel to the Government for filling up the said post in accordance with rules at an early date." It is no doubt true that the impugned G.O. refers to the report sent by the 3rd respondent on 7-10-1996 but ultimately the Government has decided to terminate the services of the petitioner after following the procedure, i.e., payment of one month's remuneration in lieu of one month's notice with immediate effect.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order issued by the Government suffers from various infirmities. It is urged that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, as no reasonable opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner before terminating her services. It is urged that such an order of termination would operate as stigma adversely affecting the professional reputation of the petitioner.