M. Kumaraswamy, vs A.P. State Handloom Weavers ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 126 AP

                                        1




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

               WRIT PETITION No.5912 of 2012

ORDER :

The Present Writ Petition has been filed for the

following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not taking any action responding to judgments, dated 08.07.2010 in C.C.No.490/2002 and Dt.13.07.2010 in C.C.No.13/2003 which are filed against the petitioner and subsequent representations dt.02.09.2010, 05.04.2011 and 12.01.2012 is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the principles of natural justice which are guaranteed by our Constitution and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith in the interest of justice."

02) Heard Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri B. Naga Jayachandra Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents.

03) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Sales Manager

(B-Grade) in APCO vide appointment letter, dated

26.12.1977 and since then he has been discharging his

duties in unblemished manner. The 1st respondent

suspended the petitioner and two others from their services

vide proceedings No.L&C/Co/TPT-H&H/96-7861, dated

18.12.1996 on the ground that there is misappropriation of

funds of Handloom House No.2 of Tirupathi. Thereafter, the

petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16559 of

1998 seeking reinstatement pending enquiry and the same

was disposed of on 27.08.1998 directing the respondents to

reinstate the petitioner into service. Accordingly, the

petitioner was reinstated into service on 23.10.1998 and

thereafter he was transferred to Srikakulam where he

performed his duties till 20.07.2000.

04) Learned counsel further submits that vide

Ref.No.8/97/Admn.III(3)/Co/TPT.RC Dt.20.07.2000, the

respondents suspended the petitioner on the ground of

misappropriation of funds. On 27.12.2001 the petitioner

submitted a representation to the respondents seeking to

release from the suspension pending enquiry and

accordingly, by an order, dated 28.02.2002, he was

released from the suspension.

05) Learned counsel submits that basing on the above

said allegations, the respondents framed three charges.

Thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service by

proceedings, dated 16.12.2006. Against which, he preferred

an appeal before the Chairman, AP S.H.W.C.S. Ltd., (Apco),

who is an appellate authority. Subsequently, vide

proceedings, dated 21.01.2008, the respondent authorities

directed the petitioner to pay the amounts along with

interest.

06) On the complaint given by the respondents,

C.C.Nos.490 of 2002 and C.C.No.13/2003 have been

registered against the petitioner and nine others. In the

above said cases, the petitioner and others were acquitted

by judgments, dated 08.07.2010 and 13.07.2010.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated

02.09.2010 to the respondents seeking to reinstate him

into the service. As there is no action, he also submitted

representations, dated 05.04.2011 and 12.01.2012. As the

respondents have not taken any action on the impugned

representations, the present writ petition is filed.

07) A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Respondents submits that the contention of the petitioner

that the respondents did not take any action to dispose of

the representations, dated 02.09.2010 and 12.01.2012 is

not correct. On consideration of the representations, dated

02.0 9.2010 and 12.01.2012 by the respondents and the

petitioner was informed vide Meme No.APCO/CO/Admn-

II/TPTHLH/MKS/2012/1780, dated 22.05.2010 informing

that the request of the petitioner to revoke dismissal order

and to reinstate the petitioner into service with reference to

judgment delivered in CC.No.490 of 2002 and CC.No.13 of

2003 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Tirupathi cannot be considered and observed

that the order of removal/dismissal cannot be effected by

his acquittal in criminal cases.

08) The learned Standing Counsel would submit that the

competent authority after perusal of the charges leveled

against the petitioner and the explanations submitted by

him to the charge memo and show cause notices and

findings of the Enquiry Officer, ordered imposing

punishment of dismissal from services and recover the

interest @ 12% per annum on the recovered apportioned

deficit amount of Rs.2,36,636/- vide proceedings, dated

16.12.2006. The other employees were also dismissed

from services by the Society, who were involved along with

the petitioner.

09) The learned Standing Counsel submits that the

petitioner has preferred an appeal for reinstatement and his

request for reinstatement in appeal was not considered

since the petitioner was involved in another deficit case of

Reduction Counter, Tirupathi wherein he was

misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,77,444-40 ps. and he

was awarded punishment of dismissal in this case also and

in view of such, his appeal for reinstatement could not be

considered and accordingly, he was informed vide

proceedings, dated 21.01.2008 to remit the deficit amount

together with interest. Learned Standing Counsel contends

that the contention of the petitioner that the dismissal order

was passed without giving any opportunity and contrary to

the natural justice is not correct since he was given ample

opportunity to defend his case.

10) Having heard the submissions of both side counsel

and upon perusing the material available on record,

admittedly, the 1st respondent by proceedings, dated

16.12.2006 awarded the punishment of "dismissal from

services and recover the interest amount @ 12% per

annum on the recovered apportioned deficit amount of

Rs.2,36,636/-" pertaining to APCO Handloom House-2,

Tirupathi to deficit case against the petitioner. Aggrieved

by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and

the said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on

21.01.2008.

11) In criminal case filed against the petitioner and others

in C.C.No.490 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, the petitioner was

acquitted by its judgment, dated 08.07.2010. In another

criminal case filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.13 of

2003 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Tirupathi, the petitioner was acquitted by its

judgment, dated 13.07.2010, the petitioner was acquitted.

Consequent to the acquittal of the petitioner in both the

criminal cases, on 02.09.2010, 05.04.2011 and

12.01.2012, he made representations to the respondents

requesting to reinstate him into services. As the

respondents did not take any action on the said

representations, the present writ petition is filed.

12) It is noticed that as per the memo, dated 22.05.2012

of the 1st respondent it was informed to the petitioner that

his representations, dated 02.09.2010 and 12.01.2012

were considered and his request has been examined and

observed that the order of removal/dismissal cannot be

effected by his acquittal in the criminal Court and therefore,

his request for reinstatement cannot be considered. The

said memo was acknowledged by the petitioner on

26.05.2012.

13) A perusal of the memo, dated 22.05.2012 issued by

the 1st respondent and the acknowledgement, dated

26.05.2012 of the petitioner with regard to receipt of the

said memo, which were filed as material papers along with

the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reveals that

the representations, dated 02.09.2010 and 12.01.2012

submitted by the petitioner to the 1st respondent requesting

to reinstate him into services is already considered and the

decision of the 1st respondent was communicated to the

petitioner on 26.05.2012. As such, there is no any

substance in the contention of the petitioner that the

representations, dated 02.09.2010 and 12.01.2012

submitted by him to reinstate him into services was not

considered by the respondents is not correct. The remedy

available to the petitioner is to challenge the memo, dated

22.05.2012 of the 1st respondent served on the petitioner

on 26.05.2012 before the appropriate forum, if so advised.

But it appears the said memo was not under challenge.

14) It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2012. As

such, directing the respondents in the present writ petition

to take action on the representations, dated 02.09.2010,

05.04.2011 and 12.01.2012 to consider the request of the

petitioner to reinstate into services does not arise, as the

petitioner already attained the age of superannuation by

30.11.2012.

15) For the above mentioned reasons, viewed from any

angle, there are no merits in the present writ petition and

the petitioner is not entitled any relief sought in the present

writ petition.

16) Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There is

no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________ BATTU DEVANAND,J

Dt. 18-01-2021

Note: Issue CC in two days.

B/o PGR