Telangana High Court
K. Ravindra, vs The Andhra Pradesh State Seed ... on 9 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.34988 of 2012
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 imposing major penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect on 18.07.2011 vide Proc.No.SCA/Estt./1563/2006, and the action of respondent No.3 in confirming the punishment order vide Proc.No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 18.10.2012 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of Job chart of Respondent Department, provisions of Seed Rules and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to grant all the service benefits, monetory benefits and all other consequential benefits including promotion as per his original entitlement and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice..."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Seed Certification Officer in respondent No.1-Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency on 01.08.1985. During Rabi, 2003-04 season, while he was working as Seed Certification Officer at respondent No.1-Office at Tanuku, West Godavari District, the petitioner has attended field inspection of agricultural lands. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred 2 PK,J wp_34988_2012 from Tanuku to Hyderabad as Seed Certification Officer and joined at Hyderabad on 17.07.2009. While things stood thus, respondent No.2 issued Charge Memo No.SCA/Estt/1563/ 2006, dated 03.03.2010, alleging that the petitioner has committed irregularities in verifying the allotted seed production plots of pulses of certified seed growers and in bringing the false claims of the farmers to the notice of his superiors, to which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation. But, without considering the said explanation, respondent No.2 has ordered a regular enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 03.11.2010 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, respondent No.2 being the Disciplinary Authority, issued Show Cause Notice No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 19.03.2011, against the petitioner calling for his explanation, to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation, dated 27.04.2011. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has passed final order, vide proceedings No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 18.07.2011, imposing major penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the 3 PK,J wp_34988_2012 petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 on 20.10.2011, who vide proceedings No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 18.10.2012, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the order, dated 18.07.2011. Challenging by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services - III appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority are not at all sustainable either in law or in facts. The Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered that the guidelines were issued in the year, 2006, for registration and consideration of areas. The Charge Memo, dated 03.03.2010 issued against the petitioner is pertaining to the Rabi season 2003-04, by which time, there was no such procedure of verification of pattadar pass book or survey numbers etc. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has relied on the observations of the Vigilance officials as apparent from the statement of imputation of charge. But, the Disciplinary 4 PK,J wp_34988_2012 Authority did not figured the Vigilance officials as list of witnesses in the Charge Memo, dated 03.03.2010, so as to enable the petitioner to cross-examine them for conducting a fair play of enquiry. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority was influenced by both the Vigilance and Enforcement Department. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed the major punishment by violating the Rule 18 of CCCA Rules, since the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer clearly shows that "since it is proved that there is no sufficient land as registered vide Form No.1 in the name of said seed producers and his defence is not convincing, he may be awarded with suitable punishment in accordance to the APSSCA employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 2001"
and even the Enquiry Officer has exceeded his role by recommending for punishment. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has utterly failed to mark the vigilance Report of Vigilance and Enforcement Department as list of documents or exhibit since the very reliance of the Disciplinary Authority in framing the alleged charge is on the basis of Vigilance report. Therefore, the action of the Disciplinary Authority is nothing but violation of principles of
5 PK,J wp_34988_2012 natural justice. It is further submitted that in the Enquiry Report, in the remarks column, it was specifically mentioned that the seed was rejected in respect of three lots by the petitioner, which, in fact, discloses that the petitioner was prompt in discharge of his duties. Therefore, the action of respondents in imposing major penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect vide proceedings no.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 18.07.2011 as confirmed by respondent No.3 vide proceedings No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 18.10.2012 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, violative of job chart of respondent - Department and provisions of Seed Rules. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (D.B.) in M.Periya Desan v. Dy.Inspector General, Chennai and another 1.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that on receipt of complaints from the Seed Organizers regarding fraudulent activities in 1 2014 LawSuit(Hyd) 746 6 PK,J wp_34988_2012 APSSDC, which is popularly known as 'A.P.Seeds', Tanuku (M), West Godavari District and Vijayawada, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department enquired into the matter and basing on report No.41, dated 16.03.2005, and Lr.No.10362/Vig.I(2)/ 2005-07, dated 14.09.2009, of Principal Secretary to Government (Agriculture & Co-Operation) A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, the Charge Memo No.SCA/Estt/1563/ 2006, dated 03.03.2010, was issued to the petitioner for the irregularities committed by him, while he was working as Seed Certification Officer, Tanuku, stating that while he was working as Seed Certification Officer, Tanuku, during the period from 17.08.2002 to 21.06.2004, he had certified 113 acres seed production plots of pulses as against the actual area of 29.78 acres during the Rabi, 2003-04 and committed irregularities due to his slack supervision, neglected his duties in not verifying allotted seed production plots of pulses of certified seed growers and in not bringing the false claims of the farmers to the notice of his Superior Officers of APSSCA, which was considered as an act of misconduct and an act of violation under Regulation 4(i) & (iv) of the APSSCA Employees Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 2001. Thereafter, the 7 PK,J wp_34988_2012 petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said Charge Memo. As the respondents were not satisfied with the said explanation, an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct inquiry against the petitioner under Rule (8) of APSSCA Employees Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 2001 vide proceedings No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 30.04.2010. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, has submitted his report, dated 03.11.2012, holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, the respondents are justified in imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner.
6. This Court has taken note of the submission made by respective parties.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that while the petitioner was working as Seed Certification Officer, respondent No.1 has issued Charge Memo, dated 03.03.2010, which culminated into the order dated 18.07.2011 imposing the major penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.
8 PK,J wp_34988_2012
8. A perusal of the material on record reveals that at every stage of enquiry, the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to putforth his case. Therefore, no procedural irregularities can be said to have committed by the respondents during the course of enquiry and therefore the domestic enquiry is valid. Further, in the Enquiry Report, the Enquiry Officer has given a categorical finding that three farmers in their evidence have stated that though they have less extents of land for cultivation, a huge extent of land was shown in the records of A.P. Seeds. This part of the Enquiry Report clearly established that the petitioner has neglected his duties by not properly conducting the field inspection. However, the guidelines for certification of areas and quantities, on which much reliance has been placed by the petitioner, were issued on 25.05.2006 whereas the alleged irregularities pertain to the period 2003-2004. Therefore, the said guidelines have no application to the present case. Further, it is well settled that when no procedural lapses are proved in conducting the domestic enquiry, the only duty cast upon the Court is to see whether the punishment imposed is proportionate or not.
9 PK,J wp_34988_2012
9. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh 2, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paras 20 to 23, held as under:
"20. Once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion normally it is not open to the tribunal and the courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal.
21. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, this Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane 3 has held as under:
"12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporatio's funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal."
22. We may also beneficially refer to a judgment rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma 4. This Court held that the tribunals would not sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. Moreover, the Labour Courts must act within the four corners of the statute concerned, in terms of the provisions thereof. When the Labour Court had held that Charge 4 stood proved, no interference by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench was called for. In the instant case, the jurisdiction 2 (2006) 6 SCC 187 3 (2005) 3 SCC 254 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 407 4 (2005) 3 SCC 401 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 417 10 PK,J wp_34988_2012 vested with the Labour Court has been exercised capriciously and arbitrarily in spite of the finding that Charge 4, with regard to the pilferage, has been proved beyond any doubt. In our opinion, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in ordering reinstatement was shockingly disproportionate in the nature of Charge 4 found proved. When Charge 4 is proved, which is grave in nature, interference with the punishment of dismissal cannot be justified. Similarly, the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved.
23. Ms Anitha Shenoy also cited a recent decision of this Court in Rajasthan SRTC v. Zakir Hussain 5 (Ruma Pal and Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ). The respondent therein was also a conductor of the appellant Corporation. He challenged the termination of his service as being in violation of the provisions of the standing order. However, without availing the remedy available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he approached the civil Courts and obtained decrees in his favour. It was challenged by the management before the High Court. The High Court declined to interfere with the orders passed by the lower court since there is concurrent findings on fact by both the courts below and that no substantial question of law arises, the appellant Corporation preferred the special leave petition before this Court questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the courts below and of the High Court particularly on the question of jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain and try the suit instead of an industrial dispute. This Court held that the civil court has no jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by any by any order of the court and that where an act creates an obligation and enforces the performance in a specified manner the performance cannot be enforced in any other manner. It was held that the employees of the State Road Transport Corporation are not civil servants and, therefore, they are not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution and that their terms of appointment 5 (2005) 7 SCC 447 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 945 11 PK,J wp_34988_2012 are governed by the letter of appointment and, therefore, the management was well within its right to terminate the services of the respondent during the period of probation if their services were not found to be satisfactory during the said period and in such an event the appellant Corporation was not obliged to hold an enquiry before terminating the services. In the concluding part of the judgment, this Court has observed that since the respondent workman has not acted bona fide in instituting the suit, the respondent was not entitled to any back wages and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the said case, it would not be appropriate to order refund of the back wages paid to him and that he shall not be allowed to continue in service any further and shall be discharged forthwith."
10. Further, in Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. J. Hussain 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paras 7 to 9, held as under:
"7. When the charge is proved, as happened in the instant case, it is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of punishment is to be imposed. Of course, this discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the charge. The disciplinary authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. A host of factors go into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exist.
8. The order of the appellate authority while having a relook at the case would, obviously, examine as to whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is reasonable or not. If the 6 (2013) 10 SCC 106 12 PK,J wp_34988_2012 appellate authority is of the opinion that the case warrants lesser penalty, it can reduce the penalty so imposed by the disciplinary authority. Such a power which vests with the appellate authority departmentally is ordinarily not available to the court or a tribunal. The court while undertaking judicial review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts.... In exercise of power of judicial review, however, the court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely because in the opinion of the court lesser punishment would have been more appropriate, cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretion of the departmental authorities.
9. When the punishment is found to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charge, principle of proportionality comes into play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be attracted, which is in tune with the doctrine of Wednesbury rule of reasonableness, only when in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of charge that it shocks the conscience of the court and the court is forced to believe that it is totally unreasonable and arbitrary. "
11. In the light of the above, once the domestic enquiry is valid, it is not open for the Courts to show misplaced sympathy on the employee and interfere with the punishment imposed, as a matter of course. In the case on hand, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner commensurate with the charges proved against the petitioner and this Court does not find any 13 PK,J wp_34988_2012 substantial material to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
12. Coming to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Periya Desan's case (referred supra), the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the Division Bench was of the view that only when any specific duty, which was assigned to the appellant was found to be not discharged, that he can be accused of his lapses. No effort was made in that direction also. But, in the present case, the respondents have produced a copy of the job chart wherein the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner are clearly enumerated. Therefore, the said judgment is of no avail to the petitioner herein.
13. For the afore-mentioned reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amaresh's case (referred supra) and Hussain's case (referred supra), this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
14 PK,J wp_34988_2012 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 09.02.2024.
TMK