Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ.
Shaik Sana and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (PIL) No. 26 of 2019
Decided On : 26-04-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Public interest litigation – Petitioners claiming to be the public spirited persons filed the writ petition in resorting to pro bono publico for issue of a Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents' 1 and 3 to surrender the 5th respondent and repatriate him to Animal Husbandry Department as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 3 to forthwith surrender the 5th respondent to his parent department – Whether maintainable – Challenged – Held, Though a writ petition is not maintainable as a public interest litigation, the way how this 5th respondent could get appointment on deputation in various departments would clearly show that he is highly influential and able to secure employment in various departments on deputation. But his continuation as a public servant i.e. the Municipal Commissioner of Gudivada Municipality on account of pendency of enquiry cannot be termed as against the interest of the institution since the allegations made against him are minor in nature i.e. granting of leave, loss of pay etc. But that continuation would not hamper the enquiry, if any, ordered against him – However, it is clear from the record that during the tenure of the 5th respondent, he served as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Pattimpale, Tadepalligudem Mandal, from 26-2-2000 to 18-6-2002 and later at Allampuram, Petapadu Mandal, from 19-6-2002 to 19-1-2011 – Thereafter, his working in different departments on deputation i.e. from 20-1-2011 onwards till date i.e. for a period of eight years – His -service in the parent department is only for a period of eleven years, whereas in the other departments in about eight years as on date – To ensure good governance, to maintain purity in administration and with a hope that the Government will take necessary steps to repatriate the 5th respondent to its parent department, subject to desirability of continuation of 5th respondent either as a Municipal Commissioner or as Veterinary -Assistant Surgeon in Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development Department, we are of considered view that the PIL is not maintainable in service matters – Court find no ground to issue any direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus – Writ petition is dismissed. (Para 62, 63 and 64)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claiming to be the public spirited persons filed the writ petition in resorting to pro bono publico for issue of a Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents' 1 and 3 to surrender the 5th respondent and repatriate him to Animal Husbandry Department as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 3 to forthwith surrender the 5th respondent to his parent department.
Findings of the case:
Though a writ petition is not maintainable as a public interest litigation, the way how this 5th respondent could get appointment on deputation in various departments would clearly show that he is highly influential and able to secure employment in various departments on deputation. But his continuation as a public servant i.e. the Municipal Commissioner of Gudivada Municipality on account of pendency of enquiry cannot be termed as against the interest of the institution since the allegations made against him are minor in nature i.e. granting of leave, loss of pay etc. But that continuation would not hamper the enquiry, if any, ordered against him – However, it is clear from the record that during the tenure of the 5th respondent, he served as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Pattimpale, Tadepalligudem Mandal, from 26-2-2000 to 18-6-2002 and later at Allampuram, Petapadu Mandal, from 19-6-2002 to 19-1-2011 – Thereafter, his working in different departments on deputation i.e. from 20-1-2011 onwards till date i.e. for a period of eight years – His -service in the parent department is only for a period of eleven years, whereas in the other departments in about eight years as on date – To ensure good governance, to maintain purity in administration and with a hope that the Government will take necessary steps to repatriate the 5th respondent to its parent department, subject to desirability of continuation of 5th respondent either as a Municipal Commissioner or as Veterinary -Assistant Surgeon in Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development Department, we are of considered view that the PIL is not maintainable in service matters – Court find no ground to issue any direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed
ORDER :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. The petitioners claiming to be the public spirited persons filed the writ petition in resorting to pro bono publico for issue of a Writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents' 1 and 3 to surrender the 5th respondent and repatriate him to Animal Husbandry Department as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 3 to forthwith surrender the 5th respondent to his parent department.
2. The 1st petitioner is the 11th Ward Councillor and the 2nd petitioner is a resident of 6th Ward of Gudivada Municipality of Krishna District. The 5th respondent is a Graduate in Veterinary Sciences and thereby he acquired proficiency in the field of Animal Husbandry. However, on account of his high level political influence he is holding in whatever party in power, he gets the posting of his choice and on deputation to some other department which is totally unconnected with his normal professional duties. He was permitted to work mostly on deputation in his service and minimum part of his service in the parent department. In terms of G.O. Rt. No. 10, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22-1-1993, he was posted to work in District Water Management Agency. The term of deputation was fixed initially and extended periodically from time to time. The Government by G.O. Rt. No. 15, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 15-1-2012, extended the term from 20.1.2012 to 19-1-2013 to work as Assistant Project Director in District Water Management Agency (DWMA), West Godavari District. Thereafter, by G.O. Rt. No. 130, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 30.3.2013, the 1st respondent extended his term from 20.1.2013 to 19.1.2014. Thereafter, by G.O. Rt. No. 83, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 20.3.2015, his term was extended with retrospective effect from 20.1.2014 to 19.1.2016.
3. The petitioners specifically contended that no employee can be sent to foreign service from parent department for more than five years' period. But by the above Government Orders, the 5th respondent shall relieve himself after completion of the 5th year of deputation and report before the parent department for his posting in the parent department. Soon after completion of five years, the 5th respondent reported before the 4th respondent for posting, hardly worked for 19 days in Animal Husbandry Department but he could secure, again transfer on deputation from Animal, Husbandry Department to join as Additional Personal Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Department vide G.O. Rt. No. 57, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (AH.I) Department, dated 1-3-2016. After working as a Personal Secretary for about 23 months, he was transferred on deputation as Municipal Commissioner, Tadepalligudem. Somehow, the Municipal Chair Person and Councillors did not accept his posting there, as such the 5th respondent was transferred as Municipal Commissioner, Gudivada and thereafter, by G.O. Rt. No. 107, Municipal Administration and urban Development (A1) Department, dated 29-1-2018, posted him as Municipal Commissioner, Gudivada, for a period of one year, which was completed on 28-1-2019.
4. While the matter stood thus, one Sana Murali Krishna of Gudivada submitted a complaint against several employees working in the Municipality, making grave and serious allegations. The 3rd respondent through proceedings Roc. No.1637153/2018/C1, dated 16-8-2018, appointed the Joint Director of Municipal Administration, Guntur, to conduct preliminary enquiry and accordingly he conducted enquiry, submitted his report through his letter dated 12-9-2018 to the 3rd respondent. While recording findings and observations in respect of three other employees, the Joint Dir
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
