K. Pushpaleela vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—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.

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.

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.

Even at the admission stage, on the directions of this Court, the concerned record is made available for the perusal of the Court. The record would reveal that the learned Advocate-General merely forwarded the report submitted by the Special Officer, Government Pleader''s Office without making any recommendation of his own and without expressing any opinion whatsoever about the enquiry report submitted by the Special Officer. Thereafter the matter was considered by the Government and the Government also did not express any opinion whatsoever about the report submitted by the Special Officer, Government Pleader''s Office. The Government merely noted the submission of the report by the Special Officer, Government Pleader''s Office. On the other hand, the Government relied upon the Executive Instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No. 57, Law, dated 16-3-1990 with a particular reference to instruction No. 5 which reads that "Law Officers shall ordinarily be appointed for a term of three years. However, either party may terminate the engagement with one month''s notice or by paying one month''s remuneration in lieu of one month''s notice in case of termination by Government." The Government observed that it is therefore, proposed to terminate the services of Ms. K.P. Leela, Assistant Government Pleader, A.P. Administrative Tribunal with immediate effect by paying one month''s remuneration in lieu of one month''s notice and to fill up the post by obtaining a fresh panel from the Advocate-General, A.P. High Court, Hyderabad."

The decision making process thus would clearly show that the termination of the petitioner''s Services as the Assistant Government Pleader is not by way of any disciplinary measure. It is a case of simple termination in accordance with the instruction No. 5 of the Rules referred to hereinabove in G.O.Ms.No. 57 Law, dated 16-3-1990, The same, in my considered opinion, does not amount to casting any stigma whatsoever upon the petitioner. It is a case of simple termination of relationship between an Advocate and a client. The order does not reflect upon the capacity or integrity of the petitioner in discharge of her functions as the Assistant Government Pleader in A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner has no cause for complaint. It is, however, declared that the order passed by the Government is an order of simple termination of Services without reflecting any opinion on the integrity and capacity of the petitioner as the Assistant Government Pleader. This order would not come in the way of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever in future whenever her case is to be considered for appointment to any public office.

Since the learned Advocate-General has not expressed any opinion whatsoever against the petitioner except passing on the report and records to the Government for appropriate action in the matter, I am of the considered opinion that he is neither an appropriate nor a necessary party to the petition. In such view of the matter, the 2nd respondent is deleted from the array of the parties and the order passed by this Court is confined as against respondents 1 and 3.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off. No costs.