APHC010081882021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3509] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 4762/2021 Between: G.venugopal Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. P C REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 34155/2018 Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND G Venugopal Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SESHA KUMARI RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 25039/2020 Between: G. Vijaya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SESHA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. P C REDDY The Court made the following: RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON’BL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITIONS No.4762/2021, 34155/2018 & 25039/2020 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, Govt. Pleader for State of Andhra Pradesh and its Authorities, Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the applicants 1 to 3 and Mrs.V. Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for the 4th applicant in all the writ petitions. 2. Writ Petition No.34155 of 2018 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Authorities (Respondents in O.A.No.3421 of 2016 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’)) (addressed as petitioners) challenging the Order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3421 of 2016. 3. Respondents No.1 to 4 were the applicants in O.A. and the 5th respondent was the 5th respondent in O.A. and has been impleaded in the present writ petition as a formal party. 4. Respondents No.1 to 4 shall be addressed as the applicants. They were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT) in the year 2010 as per the merit in DSC-2008. They were discharging their duties as such and were in the probation period. While so, basing on the complaints received, the petitioners terminated their services vide proceedings RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 4 Rc.No.3546/A2/DSC/2008, dated 08.09.2011. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed O.A.No.6965 of 2011 and batch which were disposed of by the Tribunal on 03.08.2012 by setting aside the proceedings of termination dated 08.09.2011 with the observation that the petitioners were at liberty to conduct fresh enquiry against the applicants strictly in accordance with Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short ‘APCS (CC&A) Rules’). 5. In O.A.No.6965 of 2011, decided along with the batch of O.As, the Tribunal had passed the Order dated 03.08.2012, the relevant part of which / operative part of the judgment read as under: “30. Thus, keeping in view the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra, in the conclusion, it is held that the procedure adopted by the Respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings is in clear violation of Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules. The enquiry has not been conducted properly as per the detailed procedure as provided under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules and hence, the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.3546/A2/DSC/2008 dated 8.9.2011 are liable to set aside. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside. 31. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings issued in proceedings Rc.No.3546/A2/DSC-2008 dated 6.8.2011 in O.A.Nos.6965, 6972, 7321 and 7523 of 2011; the impugned proceedings in O.A.No.7791 of 2011 dated Nil, September, 2011 and the impugned proceedings dated 8.9.2011 in all other O.As are set aside with liberty to the Respondents in all the O.As to conduct fresh enquiry against the applicants strictly in accordance with Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991. 32. All the OAs are allowed accordingly. VMAs are dismissed. MA stands closed.” 6. The applicants were not reinstated. RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 5 7. The applicants filed another O.A.No.3421 of 2016 to declare the continuation of their termination as violative and inaction in reinstating the applicants, in spite of the judgment dated 03.08.2012 in O.A.No.6965 of 2011 with further request to direct the petitioners to forthwith reinstate the applicants as Secondary Grade Teachers with all benefits from the date of their termination Order dated 08.09.2011, which had already been set aside. 8. In the O.A. No. 3421 of 2016 the petitioners did not file any counter. But as is evident from the Order of the Tribunal, impugned in this writ petition, that the learned Government Pleader before the Tribunal placed instructions issued by the District Educational Officer, Ananthapuramu, dated 29.10.2017 along with the material papers stating that the respondents had conducted enquiry. 9. The Tribunal on perusal of the enquiry report, observed that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, as directed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6965 of 2011. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the present petitioners to reinstate the applicants into service and conduct enquiry as directed previously by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6965 of 2011, and accordingly, the O.A.No.3421 of 2016 was disposed of. 10. The operative part of the Order dated 30.10.2017 passed in O.A.No.3421 of 2016 reads as under: “5. On perusing the Enquiry Report, it is clear that the enquiry is not conducted in accordance with Rule-20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules and as directed by this Tribunal earlier in OA No.6965/2011. RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 6 6. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants into service and conduct enquiry as directed by this Tribunal earlier in O.A.No.6965/2011. The OA., is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 11. Writ Petition No.4762 of 2021 and 25039 of 2020 have been filed by the applicants in the O.A. for issue of a Writ of Mandamus for direction to the present petitioners to reinstate the applicants into service pursuant to the Order dated 30.10.2017 in O.A.No.3421 of 2016. The prayers in the aforesaid Writ Petitions are as under: “W.P.No.4762 of 2021:- …to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioners pursuant to the Orders dated 30.10.2017 in OA No.3421 of 2016 passed by the Honble A. P. Administrative Tribunal, as illegal and arbitrary, and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service pursuant to the Orders dated 30.10.2017 in OA No.3421 of 2016 passed by the Honble A P Administrative Tribunal….” “W.P.No.25039 of 2020:- …to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner pursuant to the Orders dated 30.10.2017 in OA No.3421 of 2016 passed by the Honble A. P. Administrative Tribunal, as illegal and arbitrary, and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service pursuant to the Orders dated 30.10.2017 in OA No.3421 of 2016 passed by the Honble A. P. Administrative Tribunal….” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the applicants were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers in the year 2010 in pursuance of DSC Notification 2008. He submitted that their services were terminated during RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 7 the probation period by issuing notices on the ground that the applicants submitted false and vague study certificates and obtained employment fraudulently in local quota. Though the applicants’ O.A was disposed of by Order dated 03.08.2012 setting aside the termination Order but granting liberty to conduct fresh enquiry as per Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules. The petitioners conducted fresh enquiry and filed enquiry report and those instructions were submitted to the Tribunal on 29.10.2017 along with the enquiry Officer’s report. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enquiry was conducted in the presence of the applicants and the Enquiry Officer submitted the report with respect to the applicants after verification of the records of the School, in which, it was proved that the Study certificate submitted by them were fake. Based thereon, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have directed for reinstatement and ought not to have passed the impugned Order. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have seen that on the date of passing of the Order dated 08.09.2011, i.e., the termination of the services of the applicants, they were in probation period. Consequently, as per Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, the probationer who was discharged was entitled to appeal, but no such appeal was preferred, and consequently, the O.A. ought to have been dismissed on the ground of alternative statutory remedy. He further submitted that fresh enquiry was conducted and as per the Enquiry Officer’s report dated 28.10.2017, the applicants submitted fake RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 8 certificates. The enquiry officer’s report was not challenged. In the absence of any challenge to the fresh enquiry report dated 29.10.2017, the Tribunal ought not to have held that such enquiry was not as per Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules and ought not to have passed the impugned Order. 14. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no illegality in the Order impugned in the writ petition. He submitted that no fresh enquiry was conducted pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.6965 of 2011, dated 03.08.2012. Consequently, the petitioners must have complied with the directions issued in the said O.A.No.6965 of 2011 and when such direction was not complied and fresh enquiry if any and even if not challenged, but the same not being as per Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, the Tribunal was right in observing that the writ petitioners did not comply with the Order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.6965 of 2011, and so, the Tribunal was further right in directing the petitioners to reinstate the applicants into service, as also to conduct fresh enquiry as was directed by the Tribunal in previous O.A.No.6965 of 2011. 15. 15. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 16. Admittedly, the Tribunal’s Order in O.A.No.6965 of 2011 dated 03.08.2012 was not challenged which attained finality. There is no dispute on that aspect. 17. Consequently, we are of the view that the writ petitioners were bound to act in accordance with the directions issued in the said O.A.No.6965 RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 9 of 2011, which was final and binding to the parties. The proceedings of termination of the applicants services were set aside. Liberty was granted to the present petitioners (respondents in O.A.No.6965 of 2011) to conduct fresh enquiry against the applicants strictly in accordance with Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the applicants being probationers, Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules would not apply. So, the fresh enquiry was conducted, the way it ought to be conducted under Rule 17 for a probationer, and that was sufficient compliance. Based on such enquiry report dated 28.10.2017, which was placed before the Tribunal in the second round of litigation on 29.10.2017, the petitioners were justified for not reinstating the applicants, and with such action, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with. 18. The above submission deserves rejection. The reason is that the Order of the Tribunal granting liberty to conduct fresh enquiry was to conduct enquiry strictly in accordance with Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991 and that direction attained finality. If, according to the writ petitioners, Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules was not attracted in the case of the applicants, they ought to have taken their recourse against the Order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No. 6965 of 2011, which was not done. That Order having attained finality between the parties, at this stage of the proceedings, the applicability or non- applicability of Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules to the case of the applicants with respect to either the Order of the termination of services or holding of fresh enquiry pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal contrary to Rule 20 of APCS RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 10 (CC&A) Rules, cannot be raised. The writ petitioners being bound by the said judgment had to conduct the enquiry as per Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991. 19. Further, the plea that Rule 17 was applicable to the services of the applicants and they being under probation their services could be terminated, following the procedure under Rule 17, was taken before the Tribunal in O.A.No.6965 of 2011, but the same was not accepted by the Tribunal and the direction was given to hold enquiry under Rule 20. Consequently, the same argument which was not accepted by the Tribunal, may or may not be correct, it is not open to be raised again in this second round of litigation. 20. As per Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, the delinquent is required to be served the copy of the articles of the charges, the statement of the imputations, statements of the witnesses by which the article of charge is proposed to be sustained and to give opportunity to file written statement of the defence on not pleading guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority has to appoint the inquiring authority and also a government servant as Presenting Officer. The delinquent has also to be afforded opportunity to take the assistance of any other government servant, not dealing in his official capacity with the case of enquiry relating to the charged government servant. The procedure in conducting enquiry is be followed and after completion of enquiry, the enquiry report is to be forwarded to the disciplinary authority. The delinquent has to be informed of the enquiry, and to be served with copy of the RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 11 enquiry report and if it is against him, he be given opportunity to submit his response to the findings of the enquiry officer. 21. Admittedly, the fresh enquiry conducted was not as per Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the applicants had the alternative remedy to file appeal under Rule 17 of A.P.State and Subordinate Services Rules. The said submission also deserves rejection. The reason is that O.A.No.6965 of 2011 was filed and such a plea against the Order impugned in the said O.A. ought to have been taken in that O.A. itself. The Order passed in O.A.No.6965 of 2011 is not the subject matter of the challenge in the present writ petition. 23. The finality is attained to the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 03.08.2012 passed in O.A.No.6965 of 2011. In view thereof, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Order dated 30.10.2017 in O.A.No.3421 of 2016. 24. Writ Petition No.34155 of 2018 is dismissed. 25. Consequent on the dismissal of the said writ petition and maintaining the Order of the Tribunal dated 30.10.2017 in O.A.No.3421 of 2016, the other Writ Petitions Nos.25039 of 2020 and 4762 of 2021, filed by the applicants are allowed, with direction to the State/writ petitioners to reinstate the applicants pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal into service and to conduct the enquiry, as directed by the Tribunal in O.A.6965 of 2011, vide judgment dated 03.08.2012, as per Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules. 26. No order as to costs. RNT, J & CGR, J WP Nos. 34155 of 2018 & 2 ors. 12 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. _______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J ________________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Date: 25.04.2025 Dsr