Harinath.N, J
1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 15.04.2010 issued by the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 15.04.2010. It was also ordered that subsistence allowance upto 15.04.2010 shall be paid to the petitioner and that the petitioner would not be entitled for any other benefits from the institution.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Maali on 11.01.1988. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Food Craft Institute, Visakhapatnam, has its own service regulations and bye-laws. However, the impugned proceedings were issued by adopting A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings, dated 01.06.2009. The orders of suspension were issued under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 of A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991.
3. It is submitted that the charges were framed that the petitioner, while functioning as Maali, applied for leave from 30.09.2009 to 17.04.2009 and that he contested the general elections as an MLA Candidate. Charges were framed for becoming a member of political party and suppressing the contest in the general elections. It is also submitted that the petitioner had applied for leave and also sought permission for contesting in the general elections vide representation dated 28.03.2009. It is submitted that the respondents have not rejected the petitioner’s request; however, resorted to completing the enquiry and issued the proceedings of termination by invoking the A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991.
4. The petitioner submitted his response to the show cause notice and for the charges framed on 03.12.2009. However, the impugned proceedings dated 15.04.2010 has held that the petitioner admitted the charges and accepted his participation in the assembly elections was sufficient for passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was absolutely no enquiry was conducted for issuing the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service.
5. The respondents, in their counter, submit that the 1st respondent institute was taken over by the Government of Andhra Pradesh; as such there is no confusion in applying the A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991. It is submitted that the petitioner has violated Rule 19(1) (5) of the A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1991. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner, along with others has filed WP.No.2883 of 1991 and sought for a direction to be treated as Employees of the State Government. The petitioners received the service benefits as applicable to the state Government Employees and, as such, cannot claim that A.P.C.S(CCA) Rules, 1991 were not applicable for the employees of the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner did not challenge the order of suspension and that no letters were received by the respondents from the petitioners either seeking permission or leave. As such, the claim of the petitioner that the letters were sent under a certificate of posting is unbelievable. It is also submitted that the petitioner could have physically handed over the letter. However, the petitioner suppressed his participation in the elections, and only after the order of suspension was issued the petitioner has fabricated the said letters.
6. It is submitted that the petitioner's claim for reinstatement cannot be considered by this Court as the respondents have followed the procedure contemplated for initiating enquiry. The petitioner has also admitted his lapses and sought reconciliation.
7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the record, the petitioner has violated Rule 19 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. When there is a bar for Government employees to participate in political activity, the petitioner could not have contested in the elections without submitting his resignation. On the facts of this case, it is admitted by the petitioner that he intended to contest the general election as he was offered a seat from a political party. To further his political ambition, the petitioner had applied for leave and subsequently extended his leave. As the respondents were informed about the petitioner contesting in the elections, the letters addressed under the certificate of posting have been brought into existence. Even assuming that the petitioner has addressed letters on the dates appearing on those letters to the 1st respondent, he could not have been permitted to contest in election while in service of the Government. Rule 19 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 is categorically clear, and the petitioner participating in the general elections in the year 2009 would definitely violate Rule 19 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991.
8. The stand of the petitioner that the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, would not be applicable is baseless when the 1st respondent was taken over by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and when the petitioner enjoyed his service benefits from the state of Andhra Pradesh till his termination. He cannot state and submit that the bye-laws of the 1st respondent would be applicable. For these reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
