SUSHEELA DEVI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while serving as Assistant Manager in the establishment of 2nd respondent-Society for Training and Employment Promotion in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad (for short "Setwin") was issued charge-memos on 16-1-1995, 10-2-1995, 13-2-1995 and 2-3-1995 alleging certain misconduct against her. The Management of Setwin not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, appointed one Mr. M.Sadu Sunder, General Manager (PC) as the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority after holding a Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. It seems from the 4 counter affidavits filed by the 2nd respondent that the Disciplinary Authority did not act upon the enquiry report and on the other hand was contemplating de novo enquiry against the petitioner. On an earlier occasion, the 2nd respondent - Management had issued an Office Order dated 13-3-1996 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The said suspension order was assailed in W.P.No.7895 of 1996 in this Court. This Court disposed of that Writ Petition by its order dated 23-6-1997 directing the Management of Setwin that if there is any prima facie material and evidence against the petitioner, charge-sheet shall be framed in that regard and served on the petitioner on or before 1-8-1997. It was also further directed that if such charge-sheet was not framed and served on the petitioner within the stipulated time, the impugned suspension order shall stand vacated automatically and the petitioner shall be permitted to resume the office of Assistant Manager. After this event, the Management of Setwin issued afresh Charge-sheet dated 26-7-1997, the validity of which is impugned in this writ petition. Simultaneously, an office order was issued on the same day continuing the suspension of the petitioner in pursuance of the earlier suspension order dated 13-3-1996 and the validity of this suspension order is also assailed in the present writ petition.

(2.) Sri Vitas V.Afzalpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset would contend that the 2nd charge-sheet issued by the Management of the Setwin dated 26-7-1997 is on the face of it is invalid and unsustainable. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel would contend that the impugned charge-sheet is nothing but replica of the earlier charges issued vide charge-memos dated 16-1-1995, 10-2-1995, 13-2-1995 and 2-3-1995; on the earlier charges framed against the petitioner, Inquiry Officer was appointed, inquiry was conducted between 16-1-1995 and 11-8-1995; Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority and at this juncture the impugned charge-sheet came to be issued for no reasons. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel would place reliance on certain decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court.

(3.) The learned Standing Counsel for Setwin would contend that the impugned charge-sheet came to be issued when the present Managing Director received a copy of Memo No. 165/SES/A1/96-11, dated 4-9-1997 from the Government of Andhra Pradesh wherein at paras 20 to 22, he found that certain allegations were made against Sri M.Sadu Sunder relating to non-maintenance of registers and his failure to supervise properly resulting in the shortfall of production and that was the reason for the Managing Director to take a decision to hold de novo enquiry resulting in the issuance of the impugned charge-sheet. This factual statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for Setwin is in variance with the pleadings of the Setwin as could be seen from four counter affidavits filed in this case. I do not find any necessity to deal with the contradictions in the pleadings. Even assuming that what the learned Counsel for Setwin has stated is correct, even then, I do not find any justification for the Management of the Setwin to issue impugned charge-sheet, for the reasons to follow. The learned Government Pleader for Tourism would support the issuance of the impugned charge-sheet.