K Muthaiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 323 AP

                HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.1438 of 2023

                                    PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No    DATE                                                                    OFFICE
                                         ORDER

NOTE 01 24.01.2023 NV, J

W.P.No.1438 of 2023

Notice before admission.

Learned Government Pleader for Services-IV takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned final notice dated 24.11.2022 suffers from compliance of calling objections from the petitioner under Rule 20 of A.P. CS&CCA Rules and the same is also contrary to the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar and others (1993 4 SCC 727), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice.

He further submits that before imposing any punishment, after submission of enquiry report, the competent disciplinary authority must call for objections from the petitioner. After submission of objections and after considering the submissions submitted by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall issue show cause notice for proposed action. Despite the said procedure, the project officer who is not the competent authority, imposed major penalty against the petitioner by dismissing from service. He further submits that the said final notice is a mere formality and therefore the said notice is liable to be suspended.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that petitioner did not avail his explanation pursuant to the earlier show cause notice dated 29.10.2020. In default on part of the petitioner, a disciplinary proceedings were initiated and an enquiry report was submitted after providing due opportunity in enquiry. He further submits that the final notice was issued in accordance with the Rules referred supra. Therefore, the said notice does not warrant any interference of this Court.

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsels, there shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Articles of charges issued in Rc.No.D2/DD(TW)/197/2016-3 dated 08.09.2021 and final notice issued in Rc.No.D2/DD(TW)/197/2016 dated 24.11.2022, for a period of six(06) weeks.

List the matter after four(04) weeks for filing counter.

Office is directed to print the name of learned Government Pleader for Services-II in the place of learned Government Pleader for Services- IV for the respondents in the cause list.

_________ NV, J BSP