V Manohar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 7876 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

V Manohar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 August, 2024

APHC010379952024
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                    AT AMARAVATI                                          [3331]
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   FRIDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
                     TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                        PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                          WRIT PETITION NO: 19144/2024

Between:

V Manohar and 35 others.                                                 ...PETITIONER(S)

                                            AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others.                              ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following ORDER:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing notices to the petitioners bearing Roc No.324/2024 all even dated 09.08.2024 holding the appointment of petitioners to the post of Assistant Helpers/Junior Assistant as null and void and directing the petitioners to submit explanations as to why they should not be terminated or removed from service without providing them with the order passed by the Respondent No.5 referred to in the notices and other relevant material as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, without jurisdiction, contrary to principles of

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

natural justice, provisions of Service Rules of the Employees of Respondent No.4-Society dated 25.06.1990 besides being violative of petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 311 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the notices bearing Roc.No.324/2024 all even dated 09.08.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 and pass such other order or orders..."

2. Heard Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, and

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents

1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were

initially appointed temporarily (voucher basis) on 14.12.2020 in the 4th

respondent Society. Petitioners‟ services were regularized by proceedings

No.M.D/KRECS/KPM/JAO-Adm/F.No.320/D.No.1111/23, dated 15.12.2023

(Ex.P.3). (The Managing Director issued proceedings (Ex.P.2) appointed the

petitioners as Assistant Helpers on Consolidation Pay of Rs.21,880/-. The

petitioners have been discharging their duties.

4. Be that as it may, show-cause notices vide Roc.No.324/2024 dated

09.08.2024 were issued to all the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to

submit an explanation within 15 days. Assailing the said show-cause notice,

the above writ petition is filed.

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the petitioners‟

were regularized by the Managing Director as per the By-laws of the Society,

the show-cause notice issued by the Managing Director after a change of

Government, per se, is illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned

counsel submitted that in the show-cause notice, the 4th reference is the Joint

Collector, Chittoor/ Official Person In-charge note order dated 07.08.2024, has

not been furnished to the petitioners to enable them to submit the explanation.

Learned counsel also submitted that the efforts made by the petitioners to

secure the proceedings in references 2, 3, and 4 went futile. He submitted that

to submit a proper explanation to the show-cause notice, those documents are

necessary. He also submitted that the authority premeditated the issue thus

the show cause notices are liable to be set aside. He also would submit that

submitting the explanation to the show cause notices is a futile exercise

because of premeditation by the authority. Learned counsel placed reliance

upon the judgment in Shivcharan Lalchand Bhatiya vs. Sejal K.Mevada

(Special Civil Application No.12250 of 2017 dated 05.04.2018).

6. Learned Assistant Government pleader would submit that the writ

petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable. He also would

submit that if the petitioners require any documents, they should have made

an appropriate application. He also would submit that a perusal of the show

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

cause notices does not indicate any premeditation and thus prayed to dismiss

the writ petition.

7. The point for consideration is:

Whether, the show-cause notices dated 09.08.2024 issued to the petitioners, by the Managing Director of the 4th respondent Society suffer from illegality?

8. A show cause notice has the solemn purpose of informing the person

about the material for which a response is being sought concerning a case,

which may constitute a breach, for which he is being directed to submit an

explanation. The very purpose of a show cause notice is to enable the

recipient to raise objections, if any, to the proposals made, and the concerned

authority is required to address such objections which is the fundamental

principle of natural justice.

9. Another purpose behind serving a show cause notice is to make the

noticee understand the exact case set up against the individual, which one

has to meet in its reply, and the proposed action, which is intended to be

taken against the individual, if the reply is unsatisfactory. The purpose of a

show cause notice is to enable the noticee to meet the grounds, on which the

action is proposed against him. Both conditions must be fulfilled and must be

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

reflected in the notice itself. If the notice is vague and incomplete, it violates

the principles of natural justice.

10. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. (NCT

of Delhi)1, held that to fulfil the requirement of principles of natural justice,

show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz., (i) The

material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates

an action; and (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken.

11. In Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee

Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors.2, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held

thus:

"It is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard."

12. In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India

and Ors.3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held thus:

"At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should

(2014) 9 SCC 105

(1980) 3 SCC 1

(2021) 2 SCC 551

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order traveling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent."

13. In Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories4, the Hon‟ble Apex Court,

observed regarding maintainability of writ petition qua show cause notice as:

"31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out".

14. In Shakti Me-Dor Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs Central Excise

and Service Tax, Hyderabad5 and In Union of India Vs Bajaj Tempo Ltd.6 it

has been held that at the stage of show-cause notice, a writ petition should

not be entertained unless such show-cause notice is without jurisdiction. It

(2007) 13 SCC 270

2011 (2) ALD 424

1998(9)SCC 281

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

was held that the contentions in the show-cause notice should be accepted as

true and after the petitioner submits its reply thereto, the adjudicating authority

would decide the matter. It was also held that the High Court or the Supreme

Court should be approached only after exhausting the remedies provided

under the statute. A similar view has also been expressed in Assistant

Collector of Central Excise Vs Dunlop India Ltd7.

15. Keeping the principles enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court

dealt with the matter further. As seen from the material available on record,

admittedly, the petitioners were appointed temporarily (Voucher basis) on

14.12.2020. Later, the petitioners‟ were appointed as Assistant Helpers on

consolidation pay of Rs.21,880/- vide Ex.P.2. By proceedings Ex.P.3 dated

15.12.2023, in pursuance of the PIC Meetings vide Resolution Nos.9 and

10 and Note order of the Chairman dated 15.12.2023, the services of the

petitioners were regularized.

16. In the show-cause notices Ex.P.1, it was pointed out that the

recruitment/regularization as the Assistant helper in the 4th respondent Society

was done irregularly, without following the standard due process by the then

1985 (19) ELT 22 SC

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

authorities. Thus, the show-cause notice was issued calling upon the

petitioners to submit an explanation.

17. Of course, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners in the

show-cause notice, it was mentioned that „the appointment is considered as

null and void‟. It is settled principle of law that the notice is required to be read

as a whole. No meaning can be made out by separating one paragraph from

another. A hyper technical view shall not be taken by looking at part of the

notice. A careful perusal of the recital in the notices, it cannot be construed

that the authority premeditated the issue. In the considered opinion of this

court, using the words, null and void, does not mean that the authority

premeditated the issue. Unless the authority indicated in the notice about

irregularity or illegality the petitioners may not be able to reply and meet the

allegations. Thus, the language employed in the notices qua „appointment is

null and void‟, does not amount to premeditating the issue. Thus, the judgment

relied upon by the petitioner may not apply to the facts of this case.

18. When a show-cause notice was issued, the authority should also furnish

or enclose relevant material enabling the recipient to submit an appropriate

explanation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

efforts made by the petitioners to secure the proceedings of PIC Meetings

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

vide Resolution Nos.9 and 10 and Note order of the Chairman dated

15.12.2023 and the Joint Collector, Chittoor/Official Person In-charge note

order dated 07.08.2024 went futile and without those documents, the

petitioners may not be able to submit a proper explanation, the petitioners

must make application to the authority to supply the required documents.

However, in the case at hand, it seems, no such application was made. If the

petitioners make any application to furnish the documents, the concerned may

furnish the documents as per the Rules enabling the petitioners to submit an

explanation.

19. Given the discussion supra, since the writ petition is filed against the

show-cause notice, though the writ petition is not maintainable, however, in

the peculiar facts of this case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent

of learned counsel on either side at the admission stage, with the following

directions:

1) The petitioners shall make an application to the 4th respondent requesting the authority to furnish the documents required enabling the petitioners to submit a proper explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order;

2) If such an application is made, the 4th respondent, subject to the rules and regulations, shall furnish the documents sought by

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

the petitioners enabling them to submit a reply to the show-

cause notice within two weeks.

3) The petitioners shall submit an explanation within two weeks. The Managing Director of the 4th respondent Society shall consider the same objectively and if necessary by providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.

4) Till a decision is taken, the authority of the 4th respondent shall not discontinue the petitioners from services.

5) Observations, if any, made in the order cannot be construed as observations on merits of issue. They were made only to dispose of the writ petition.

5) No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

Dated 30.08.2024 KA

SRS, J wp_19144_2024

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 19144/2024

Dated 30.08.2024 KA