THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.40764 of 2017
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"......to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus orders of the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.E1/1139/HR/2014 dated 20.07.2017 confirming the orders of 4th respondent and further passed orders for permanent removal from service in Proc.No.E2/1/1139/2014 dated 27.12.2014 directed to recover an amount of Rs.12,298/- + Rs.2,500/- penalty from the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, inviolation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Director, Rural Development in Circular No.666/EGS(P)/2012 dated 08.01.2013 and consequently, set aside the orders of 4th respondent dated 27.12.2014 and 3rd respondent dated: 20.07.2017 by directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to continue into service as Filed Assistant of Kistarayipalli Village and pass....."
02. Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II representing learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the record. 2
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Filed Assistant, Kistarayipalli Grama Panchayat, Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District in the year 2006 under MGNREGS. During the service, respondent No.4 issued showcause notice No.E2-1/1139/2014 on certain allegations i.e., change of location, benami musters and misappropriation of funds and that the petitioner submitted detailed explanation dated 28.07.2014 and that respondent No.4 passed Orders in R.C.No.E2/1/1139/2014 dated 27.12.2014 dropping the proceedings against the petitioner and treating the same as first mistake and levied penalty of Rs.14,798/-.
04. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before respondent No.3 Appellate Authority. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of dropping the proceedings by respondent No.4, the petitioner was not instated into service as Field Assistant. The Appellate Authority without considering the contentions of the petitioner passed 3 impugned Order dated 20.07.2017 enhancing the punishment by removing the petitioner from services.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority is not having any jurisdiction or authority to enhance the punishment in the appeal filed by the petitioner and that the impugned Order passed by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction.
06. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that in Order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the respondents it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner was warned and he was levied with penalty of Rs.14,798/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted while filing appeal before Appellate authority that the nature of order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the respondent No.4 as 'removal order' and that there is no illegally or irregularity in the impugned Order passed by respondent No.3.
07. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of material available on record, it clearly reveals that the petitioner 4 was appointed as Field Assistant, Kistarayipalli Grama Panchayat, Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District in the year 2006 under MGNREGS and respondent No.4 issued showcause notice No.E2-1/1139/2014 with several charges i.e., change of location, benami musters and misappropriation of funds to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 28.07.2014 and respondent No.4 passed Orders in R.C.No.E2/1/ 1139/2014 dated 27.12.2014 wherein it is stated that the petitioner neglected his duties and caused financial loss to the Government and that the said amount of Rs.14,798/- is liable to be recovered from the petitioner and further stated that the mistake committed by the petitioner is treated as first mistake and dropped the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.3-appellate authority and the said authority while dismissing the appeal enhanced the punishment removing the petitioner from services in addition to recovery of amount of Rs.14,798/- as ordered by respondent No.4, especially, in the appeal filed by the 5 petitioner without mentioning any source of power and also without giving any reasons.
08. It is very much relevant to mention here that the respondent No.3 while exercising quasi-judicial appellate powers ought to have considered the appeal by appreciating the material evidence on record afresh and by giving reasons. The Honourable Supreme Court in the M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.Ltd and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed 1 relying upon the Judgment of S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 2 held that the quasi-judicial authority or administrative authority while passing orders should record reasons in support of its conclusions. In the case on hand, respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, without giving any reasons and passed a cryptic order, which reads as under:
"Therefore in accordance with the instructions under reference 9,10 and 11, the permanent removal of the Field Assistant from contract service besides recovery of Rs.14,798/- from FA is confirmed."
1 2010 9 SCC 496 2 1990 4 SCC 594 6 In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.07.2017 is liable to be set aside.
09. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Order vide Proc.No.E1/1139/HR/2014 dated 20.07.2017, is set aside, and the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh, and pass appropriate Order, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, after giving opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing.
10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 20-SEP-2023 Note:
Issue CC by One Week.
B/o.KHRM 7 154 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.40764 of 2017 Date: 20-SEP-2023 Note:
Issue CC by One Week.
B/o.KHRM