Telangana High Court
The Project Officer, Itda, Utnoor, vs K.Nago Rao on 28 February, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
`HON'BLE SRI JUS1TICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
W.P.No.27618 of 2010
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2010 passed in O.A.No.4877 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the petitioners and Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent was working as a School Assistant in Ashram Girls High School, Mahagaon, Sirpur Mandal, Adilabad District. While so, on 02.01.2007 a girl child has 2 committed suicide and it was alleged that the 1st respondent was responsible for the suicide of the said girl. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge memo and the following two articles of charges were framed.
"Article-I: that the said Sri K.Nago Rao, School Assistant (Social) AHS(G) Mahagoan (U/S) has committed certain irregularities that Kumari Mesram Sangeetha D/o.Sambhu 10th Class AHS (G) Mahagaon was committed suicide on 02.01.2007 by jumping into the open well and expired on 02.01.2007 at 5.30 PM due to his pressure and warnings she joined and corporeal with him in the night due to his activities Kumari M.Sangeetha was felt insult in the school and in front of the students of the school and she jumped into the open well of the school. It clearly shows that his gross negligence and not discharging his legitimate duties being a responsible Govt. Employee.
Article-II: That the said Sri K.Nago Rao, School Assistant (Social) AHS(G) Mahagoan (U/S) has committed certain irregularities that he has created fear and given warnings to Kumari Mesram Sangeetha D/o. Sambhu 10th Class student in night 3 time on 1.1.2007 at Qtr. No.1 after completion of supervisory study duty and due to his activities Kumari M.Sangeetha 10th Class student afraid of him and joined and corporeal with in Qtr.No.1. In the early hours the ANM was seen the said student and enquired the matter later, the student was felt insult in the school and in front of the students of the school and jumped into open well and committed suicide. He has spoiled the life of minor girl student. It clearly shows that he is no longer fit to continue in Government service and if people like him are allowed to continue they shall play with the lines of the children and shall be a hinderance to nation building and that such people should not be allowed to continue in the Government Service and definitely in the education Sector when they can play havoc with the lives of girls boarders and become a hinderance to nation buildings also."
As the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent was not convincing, the disciplinary authority has ordered regular departmental enquiry and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report during March 2007 holding that the charges leveled against the 1st 4 respondent were held to be proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the 1st respondent calling for his explanation. After receiving explanation from the 1st respondent, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal vide order dated 07.07.2007. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the 1st respondent has preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority has dismissed the same vide proceedings dated 15.02.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.4877 of 2008. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, the Tribunal vide order dated 22.04.2010 allowed the OA by setting aside the order of removal and directed the petitioners to reinstate the 1st respondent into service. Hence, the present writ petition.
5
4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners had contended that the charges levelled against the 1st respondent were held to be proved in the enquiry and hence, the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the punishment of removal against the 1st respondent. The Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment of removal. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent had contended that no opportunity was given to the 1st respondent to defend his case before the enquiry officer and the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements behind the back of the 1st respondent and no statements were recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has mechanically held that the charges levelled against the 1st respondent were proved. Learned counsel 6 had further contended that for the very same set of allegations, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the 1st respondent vide S.C.No.82 of 2008 and the 1st respondent was also acquitted of the said S.C.No.82 of 2008 vide judgment dated 30.12.2008, whereunder a specific finding was recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, while acquitting the 1st respondent that the offence under Section 376-B IPC could not be proved against the 1st respondent by the prosecution. When the Tribunal has noticed that enquiry was not properly conducted and 1st the respondent was also acquitted of the criminal charge, the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order of Tribunal and rightly directed the petitioners to reinstate the 1st respondent into service. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has interfered with the order of Tribunal on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted and none of the witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry and the Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that the respondent was acquitted in S.C.No.82 of 2008 vide judgment dated 30.12.2008 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Hence, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are valid. However, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of removal and straight away set aside the order of removal by directing the petitioners to reinstate the 1st respondent. The Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the petitioners so as to enable them to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with 8 law. The Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage where such injustice has been done i.e., in the form of not extending the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case of the 1st respondent is remanded back to the petitioners to continue the disciplinary proceedings from the stage when there is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the Enquiry Officer's report and the removal order, which is based upon such defective report of the Enquiry Officer is also liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 22.04.2010 passed in O.A.No.4877 of 2008 by the Tribunal and also the impugned removal order. The matter is remanded back to the petitioners to continue the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of conducting fresh enquiry and the out of employment 9 period of the respondent have to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. Since the incident is of the year 2007, the petitioners are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall also take into account the fact that the 1st respondent was acquitted of the criminal case by the competent Criminal Court in S.C.No.82 of 2008 vide judgment dated 30.12.2008. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI _________________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date: 28.02.2024 rkk