(1.)This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in dismissing the petitioner from service without conducting enquiry as arbitrary, illegal and mala fide; declaring the de novo enquiry initiated by the 1st respondent as illegal and consequently to drop the same; and to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the A.P. State Warehousing Corporation along with other candidates following G.O. Ms. 117, Food and Agriculture (Marketing-I) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 19/02/1990.
(2.)In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner was employed as Junior Assistant on daily wage basis in the Guntur Warehousing Corporation, Unit-II, in year 1986, that he was discharging his duties satisfactorily, that through G.O. Ms. No. 117, Food and Agriculture (Marketing-I) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 19/02/1990 the Government have considered several candidates who were appointed along with the petitioner on daily wage basis for regularising the services in the category of Junior Assistant, that his name was also included at Serial No. 34, that pursuant to the said G.O. the respondents through proceedings No. SWC/E1/15289/88-II dated 12/04/1991 have regularised the services of the candidates except four candidates including the petitioner, that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and two others on the ground that on 24/08/1989 when the ACB officials have raided the office they found some irregularities of collecting extra amounts by the petitioner from the fair-price shop dealers, that as there was no evidence to file a criminal case the ACB officials have directed the respondents to conduct departmental enquiries against the petitioner, that subsequently without conducting any enquiry the 1st respondent dismissed the petitioner from service by his order No. SWC/E6/11366/89-1, dated 4/11/1989, that the petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 16408 of 1989, that this Court by an order dated 21/11/1989 suspended the said dismissal order of the 1st respondent, that thereupon the petitioner was reinstated into service and continuing, that during the pendency of the writ petition the authorities conducted an enquiry and the petitioner was fully exonerated by the enquiry officer, that the 1st respondent not satisfied with the enquiry report has ordered for a de novo enquiry through proceedings dated 28/11/1990 on the ground that the officials of the ACB were not examined during the enquiry, that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charge memo issued pursuant to the de novo enquiry requesting the authorities for the supply of records and statements for filing a detailed explanation, that the Regional Manager, A.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Kakinada was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, that the last date fixed for the enquiry was 16/05/1991, that when the enquiry was thus going on the 1st respondent passed an order No. SWC/11366/E6/89 dated 7/05/1991 dismissing the petitioner from service stating that there is no necessity to conduct any enquiry on the ground that Regulation No. 36 of the A.P. State Warehousing Corporation Regulations, 1965 does not apply to the petitioner he being a daily wage employee, that the 1st respondent also cast a stigma in the said proceedings on the petitioner saying that the services of the petitioner are not satisfactory and he is an undesirable element to continue in service and that under Regulation No. 41 of the A.P. State Warehousing Corporation Regulations, 1965 an appeal was provided only to the 2nd respondent.
(3.)In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is alleged that during the raid conducted by the ACB officials on 24/08/1989 it was found that the petitioner was in possession of some amount accepted by him from the fair price shop dealers which fact was also confessed by him during the course of raid, that basing on the statement of the Director of ACB the petitioner was earlier dismissed from service, that the Director General of the ACB addressed a letter to the Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Food & Agriculture Department, saying that the enquiry officer appointed by the Corporation did not examine the officials of the ACB or the mediators and did not follow the procedural rules while conducting the enquiry, and requested the Government to issue instructions to the A.P. State Warehousing Corporation to order a de novo enquiry, that the Government of Andhra Pradesh have directed the Corporation to take immediate action as suggested by the ACB, that as per the said instructions a de novo enquiry was ordered by the Corporation by appointing the Regional Manager, A.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Kakinada as Enquiry Officer, that a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner instead of submitting his explanation requested the enquiry officer to supply to him certain documents, that the said request was rejected by the Corporation as it felt that it was not necessary to supply the said documents, that the petitioner has submitted his explanation after a lapse of about three months after issue of the charge memo, that the explanation was therefore not taken into consideration, that the petitioner did not co-operate with the enquiry officer, that therefore the enquiry could not be completed, that the petitioner was taken into service on casual basis, that as per the A.P. State Warehousing Corporation Employees Regulations, the petitioner does not fall under the term "employee" of the Corporation, that the provisions of the Corporation for conducting enquiry are applicable for only regular employees, that therefore the Corporation issued proceedings dated 7/05/1991 dismissing the petitioner from service without referring to any charges legelled against him earlier as his services are not required for the Corporation, that the petitioner's name was not considered for regularisation as disciplinary enquiry was pending against him, that though his name was included in the list of the proposed candidates for regularisation, it is for the Corporation to regularise the services of such candidates whose work is satisfactory, that the Managing Director is empowered to order de novo enquiry against the petitioner as instructed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in view of the seriousness of the charges made against him and that the petitioner is out of service since the date of the order passed by the 1st respondent.