K.Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7045 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                                 W.P. No. 8579 of 2020
ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

".....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from his services by the 5th respondent vide Proc.C.No.41/OE.PR/2011, dated 03.02.2012, which was confirmed by the 4th respondent vide its proceedings C.No.15/ Appeal-P1/2012, Ro.No.205/2012, dated 11.04.2012 and the Revision rejected by the 3rd respondent, vide Proc.Rc.No.497/A1/NCZ-Hyd/ Mercy/2012 dated 29.12.2012, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the orders of the 5th respondent Proc.C.No.41/OE.PR/2011, dated 03.02.2012, 4th respondent proceedings C.No.15/Appeal-P1/2012, Ro.No.205/2012, dated 11.04.2012 and the order of the 3rd respondent Rc.No.497/A1/NCZ-Hyd/Mercy/2012 dated 29.12.2012 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner's services and pass such other order or orders ...."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government

Pleader for Services-I and learned Government pleader for Home (AP)

appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner who was unauthorized absentee, disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against him by the enquiry officer after

conducting enquiry vide Proceedings C.No.03/OE.PR/DSP.AR.ELR

/1999 (C.No.12/TR/1999), dated 19.01.2001 and charges were framed

against him and the charge was proved against the writ

petitioner/delinquent. Against the said order, the petitioner herein filed

an appeal before the 4th respondent i.e. Deputy Inspector General,

Eluru Range, Eluru. The 4th respondent rejected the appeal without

assigning any reasons vide order dated 11.04.2005.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed revision

before the revisional authority i.e. Inspector General of Police, North

Costal Zone, Visakhapatnam-3rd respondent herein. The said revision is

rejected by an order dated 29.12.2012 by the 3rd respondent without

assigning any reasons.

5. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the 3rd and 4th

respondents respectively, the present writ petition came to be filed on

the ground that the orders of both the respondents were issued without

assigning any reasons, it is violation of principles of natural justice and

prayed to set aside the orders and remand back to the appellate

authority and to direct the appellate authority to pass appropriate

orders on merit and relied on the Judgment in "Kranti Associates

Private Limited and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others" 1. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that not recording reasons by

administrative authorities in exercising their powers in violation of

principles of natural justice and the paragraph no.47 is hereby

extracted.

"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the

appeal was disposed in the year 2012 and the same cannot be set aside

at this stage after lapse of ten years. The preliminary authority has

given reasons to that effect. Therefore no interference is required by

this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after

rejecting the appeal by the 4th respondent, he made a representation to

the then Home Minister to consider his reinstatement for police

constable. As there is no response from the Home Minister, the

Petitioner made representation to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh

by way of mercy petition dated nil. In response to the representation,

the Chief Minister endorsed the same to the 2nd respondent i.e. Director

General of Police vide Proc.CO.Endt. D.Dis.No.1182/T1/2019, dated

21.11.2019 and called for the report from the concerned authority.

After receiving the report from the concerned officer the 5th respondent

issued endorsement C.No.10030/A6/2019, dated 24.12.2019, rejecting

claim of the petitioner. As such the delay happened which was neither

intention nor willful and there is no lapse on the part of the petitioner

and prayed to direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal as

contemplated under Rule 37 of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules,

1991.

8. The Orders of the appellate and revisional authority does not

contain any reasons. The procedure contemplated under rule 37 of the

CCA Rules for disposal of the appeal:- The Appellate authority has to

look into whether the rules laid down in these rules are complied with

or not. Whether, such non compliance has resulted violation of any

provisions of the Constitution of India or in failure of justice. Whether,

the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence

on record.

9. The appellate authority being Quasi Judicial authority and also

last authority for the fact finding, has not assigned any reasons and not

passed the order as indicated in Rule 37 of A.P. Civil Services (CCA)

Rules, 1991, while disposing the appeal, though the Indian Evidence

Act is not strictly applicable. As the order of the Appellate authority

sans reasons and not followed the procedure as contemplated under

Rule 37 of CCA Rules, 1991, which amounts to failure of justice.

10. After considering submissions made by both the petitioner and

respondents, this Court is inclined to remand back to the 3rd

respondent-Appellate Authority for hearing the appeal in accordance

with law. However, it is made clear the petitioner is not entitled for

reinstatement pending disposal of the appeal.

11. If the original record is not available, the petitioner is permitted to

file fresh papers and same may be received by the respondent

authorities for dispose of the appeal. The appeal shall be disposed of

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

12. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 15-09-2022 Harin

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

W.P.No.8579 OF 2020

Date: 15-09-2022

Harin