THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18782 OF 1999 Dated: 22.06.2010 Between:
Sri N. Kishore … Petitioner And
1. The Govt. of A.P., Dept. of Law & Legislative Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariate, Hyderabad.
2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18782 OF 1999 ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.1258, dated 19.8.1999 terminating the engagement of the petitioner as Assistant Government Pleader of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram with immediate effect as arbitrary and illegal.
The petitioner is a practising advocate at Vizianagaram. He was appointed as the Assistant Government Pleader vide G.O.Rt.No.862, dated 14.11.1996 for the Court of Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram for a period of 3 years. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner assumed charge on 20.11.1996. While so, the 1st respondent vide memo dated 29.12.1998 called upon the petitioner to offer his remarks with regard to the allegations that he had not appeared and represented the suit in O.S.No.2 of 1997 on 17.8.1998 even though the connected documents and necessary records were handed over to him on 1.2.1997. It was also alleged that though the suit was decreed ex parte on 17.8.1998, the petitioner had sent the written statement on 29.8.1998 and suppressed the ex parte decree upto 13.10.1998. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 23.01.1999 stating that he had only received the plaint and petition copies along with para-wise remarks on 1.2.1997 and the connected records were not handed over to him. It was further stated that having adjourned the matter on various dates, ultimately on 17.8.1998 the Government was set ex parte and accordingly an ex parte decree was passed. The allegation that he did not appear on that day was specifically denied. It was further stated that though written statement as well as counter in I.A.No.46 of 1997 were ready and the said fact was informed to the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa on phone, nobody turned up to collect the same. It was also stated that the officials came to his office on 6.8.1998 and collected the draft written statement for approval and the signatures of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Though the petitioner informed them at that time that the matter was posted to 17.8.1998 as a last chance and no further time would be granted, the officials failed to hand over the written statement. On 17.8.1998 though the petitioner requested for extension of time, the request was rejected and ex parte decree was passed. The said fact was informed to the officials immediately on phone. It was also stated that from the beginning the officials of the Mandal Revenue Office were not co- operative in the said case and there was no negligence on his part.
Thereafter the impugned order dated 19.8.1999 came to be passed terminating the engagement of the petitioner as Assistant Government Pleader with immediate effect on payment of one month’s remuneration in lieu of one month’s notice. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that the termination of the petitioner’s engagement as Assistant Government Pleader without considering his explanation and without conducting any enquiry is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that having called for the remarks from the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought to have made a detailed enquiry with regard to the correctness of the allegations before passing the impugned order.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that after receiving reply from the petitioner, the District Collector offered her remarks on the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The District Collector, Vizianagaram in her remarks stated that though the entire record was handed over to the Assistant Government Pleader on 1.2.1997, approved draft counter-affidavit was handed over to the staff of the Mandal Revenue Office only on 28.9.1998 after the suit was decreed ex parte on 17.8.1998. It was also alleged in the remarks of the District Collector that the petitioner was delaying the matter on some pretext or other and he failed to safeguard the interest of the Government.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
As per A.P. Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 made under G.O.Ms.No.118, Law, dated 28.6.1999, the 1st respondent is the competent authority to appoint the Law Officers and such appointment can be terminated on one month’s notice in writing on either side and without assigning any reasons.
The petitioner’s appointment was admittedly subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the above rules and consequently it was always open to the 1st respondent to terminate the petitioner’s engagement as Assistant Government Pleader on one month’s notice without assigning any reasons.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s engagement as Assistant Government Pleader was terminated in exercise of the said power conferred under the Rules. Apparently it was a termination simplicitor without assigning any reasons. As the petitioner was also paid one month’s remuneration in lieu of notice, there cannot be any dispute that the termination was in compliance with the requirement of the terms and conditions of appointment. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted.
However the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since serious allegations were made against the petitioner with regard to the performance of his duties as a law officer and he was called upon to explain the same and the petitioner in his explanation dated 23.01.1999 denied all the said allegations, the 1st respondent was bound to make an enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations before passing the impugned order. It is also contended that the impugned action of the 1st respondent which attached a stigma on the writ petitioner amounts to arbitrary exercise of power apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice.
I do not find any substance in the said contention since the impugned order did not refer to the earlier memo dated 29.12.1998 under which the petitioner was called upon to explain the alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner in discharging his duties as law officer much less there was any reference to the petitioner’s explanation dated 23.01.1999. Thus the impugned order is only a termination simplicitor to which the principles of natural justice are not attracted. It is true that the impugned order refers to the D.O. letters of District Collector, dated 3.12.1998 and 16.6.1991, however the contents of the said letters were not revealed and there was nothing to indicate that the termination was based upon the said letters. Hence there is no reason to hold that it is a termination on the ground of any misconduct. Therefore the question of attaching stigma does not arise at all.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.
G. ROHINI, J.
Dt. 22.06.2010 gbs