JAGADESWAR S Vs. LOK AYUKTA OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders assailed by the petitioner in this case are those passed by respondent No.l, the Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh on 17-4-1996 and 12-6-1996 and the order passed by respondent No.2, the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar in pursuance of the order of 17-4-1996 on 25-4-1996 transferring the petitioner as Special R.I. (ROR), M.R.O's. office, Amrabad and the subsequent modification of it by order of 16-5-1996 posting him as Senior Assistant, M.R.O's. Office, Alampur. Since the petitioner is a Government servant and any disadvantageous orders of transfer are assailable only before the Andhra Pradesh State Ad ministrative Tribunal, the petitioner has confined his challenge only to the orders passed by the learned Lok Ayukta and not the consequential orders passed by the District Collector effecting his transfer. Even though the orders adversely affecting the petitioner's posting are not challenged yet, because of the very important questions raised as to the procedure followed by the Lok Ayukta and the order passed affecting the petitioner substantially which ultimately resulted in the orders of transfers being passed, we have thought it fit not to reject the application only because the consequential orders are not challenge before us. The order complained of by the petitioner undoubtedly affects the petitioner substantially and as such we have taken up the writ petition for consideration.

(2.) The facts, to state in brief, appear to be that respondent No.3 made a complaint before the Lok Ayukta and order was passed by him on 17-4-1996 requesting the respondent No.2 to transfer the petitioner to a distant place far away from Shadnagar Mandal as it looked that he had developed deep roots and vested interests in the Mandal by working for too long a period in that area. The District Collector was desired to inform the Lok Ayukta by 12-6-1996 of the action taken. On receipt of the order respondent No.2 transferred the petitioner on 25-4-1996 from the office of the M.R.O., Kothur to the office of the M.R.O., Amrabad posting him as special R.I. (ROR) there. But as the petitioner was on election duty he was not relieved from the post and after completion of the elections he was relieved on 15-5-1996 to report before the M.R.O., Amrabad. But on the very next day, order was passed on 16-5-1996, modifying the earlier order issued on 25-4-1996, transferring and posting the petitioner as Senior Assistant in the office of the M.R.O., Alampur. The petitioner made a representation before the Lok Ayukta in the Complaint No.496 of 1996 registered at the instance of respondent No.3 to punish the complainant as having lodged false complaint against him and also bringing to his notice that he had been put to various difficulties because of the order of transfer as his daughters are studying in Hyderabad and he had been transferred on false allegations. His representation was rejected by the Lok Ayukta refusing to interfere as the petitioner had been transferred as per the specific order passed on 17-4-1996 and he had served too long a period at one place and had developed deep roots.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 stating that on a complaint received from respondent No.3 it was sent to the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar by order of 17-4-1996 to take action in the matter and that since action had been taken by the District Collector, the matter was closed by the Lok Ayukta on 12-6-1996. It is in this context that the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner was condemned unheard, was never given any opportunity and that the respondent No.l did not follow the mandatory procedure of the Andhra Pradesh Lok Ayukta & Upa-Lok Ayukta Act, 1983 (Act No.11 of 1983), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Another submission urged by the learned counsel is of the petitioner being outside the ambit of the proceedings under the Act as he is not an officer within the meaning of Section 2(i) as the minimum scale of pay of the post he holds is less than Rs.1,150/-. Even though such contention has been raised, yet the learnd counsel has not placed any material before us and there is even no affidavit as to the minimum scale of the post he occupies and hence we are not in a position to hold him to be not an officer as defined in the Act. We consequently proceed on the footing of him being a person to whom the Act applies.