M. Surendra vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4692 AP

             HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                   MAIN CASE: W.P. No. 9719 of 2019

                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.     DATE                                 ORDER                                 OFFICE
NO.                                                                                 NOTE

28.   27.07.2022    RNT, J

                              Sri A. D. Ramaratna Sharma, learned
                    counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary

objection that against the order of dismissal dated 06.07.2019, the petitioner has the remedy of departmental appeal. He submits that the writ petition was filed as by that time the Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams Board was not constituted, as per para-2 of the writ petition. Later on, the petitioner filed appeal before the Board which is still pending.

Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice in conducting enquiry, the pen drive and video recording upon which the enquiry officer placed reliance were neither made part of list of evidence to be produced to prove the charges nor the same were provided to the petitioner. Any document was not provided to the petitioner. The enquiry is also vitiated as the petitioner was examined first by the enquiry officer whereas the enquiry officer is not supposed to act like the presenting officer. He further submits that there was no documentary evidence except the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer & Security Officer, TTD, but the said officer was not examined to prove the report. The petitioner was also not afforded an opportunity to lead his evidence by examining his witnesses. The enquiry was conducted and completed on the same day i.e., on 05.01.2019.

SL.   DATE                          ORDER                           OFFICE
NO.                                                                  NOTE

There is complete violation of the principles of natural justice as also Rule-20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and consequently, placing reliance on the judgments in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks {(1998) 8 SCC 1}, Popcorn Entertainment v. City Industrial Development Corpn. {(2007) 9 SCC 593}, Moni Shankar v. Union of India {(2008) 3 SCC 484} and Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma {(2018) 7 SCC 670}, Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in spite of the alternative remedy of appeal, the petitioner's cae can be considered on the principles of law and the petitioner deserves not be relegated to the appellate authority after 3 years of filing of the writ petition.

Sri A.D. Ramaratna Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, requests that the matter may be taken up in the next week to enable him to advance his submissions.

List on 03.08.2022 for further hearing. Learned counsel for the respondent shall file and bring on record the proceedings of the departmental enquiry by the next date of listing.

_________ RNT, J Dsr