Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T. Ravi Kumar, vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 26 September, 2024
•/
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 14155 OF 2014 AND 8712 OF 2009
WRIT PETITION NO: 14155 OF 2014
Between:
T. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Sri. T. Subbarayudu, Aged 39 years. Former Attender,
TTD Reception Office, Tirumala, R/o. D.No. 20-1-471H5A6 Korlagunta,
Tirupati, Chittoor District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal, Secretary,
Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Represented by its Chairman Board
of Trustees, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
3. Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams, Represented by its Executive Officer,
Tirupati, Chittoor District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring all the proceedings leading upto and
including Memo. No. 40128/Endts.lll/A2/2009 dated 17.09.2012 of the 1st
respondent herein communicated through proceedings
Roc.No.B8/419/2010 dated 24.10.2012 of the 3rd respondent in dismissing
the petitioner from service as illegal, arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, contrary
to the material on record, violative of principles of natural justice and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set
, aside all the proceedings and direct the respondents herein to reinstate
him back into service with all consequential and attendant benefits
Counsel for the Petltioner(s):SRI. P V L BHANU PRAKASH
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 : SRI A PRBAKARA SARMA SC for
TTD
WRIT PETITION NO: 8712 OF 2009
Between:
A. Karunanidhi, S/o. Late A. Tiruvengadam, aged 48 years. No.9, Nehru
Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd. by its Principle Secretary to
Government - Revenue (Endowments-Ill) Dept., A.P. Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
2. Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanams, Reptd. by its Chairman, Board of
Trusties Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
3. Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanams, Reptd. by its Executive Officer,
Tirupathi, Chittoor District.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 C.T is amended as
per C.O. dt 13/6/16 in WPMP No.30370/2015)
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue a Writ or direction, more in the nature of a Writ of
Mandamus, declaring the proceedings Memo No. 36119 dt. 24-3-2009 of
the respondents in dismissing the petitioner from service, as illegal, arbitrary
and contrary to the material
on record and further amounted to denial of fair
trial and violative of principles of natural justice, and to set aside the same
and direct the respondents to reinstate petitioner into service.
lA NO: 1 OF
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed i
in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to permit the Petitioner to modify the prayer as "To issue a Writ or
direction more in the nature of
a Writ of Mandamus declaring the
proceedings Memo No. 36119 dt. 24-03-2009 of the respondents in
dismissing the petitioner from
service as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the
material on record and further amounted to denial-J of fair trail and violative of
principles of natural justice and to set aside the same and direct the
respondents to treat the period of suspension to till the date of retirement
i e., 31-05-2020 as in service and pay the terminal benefits as per law.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. G RAMA SARMA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 : SRI A PRBAKARA SARMA, SC for
TTD
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION Nos.l41Sf; of 2014 and 8712 of 2009
COMMON ORDER;
The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated
14.06.2006 whereby, the respondents have rejected the appeal
filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner challenged the
order of the disciplinary authori-.y, dated 19.08.2002.
2. The petitioner was working as Attender in the respondent
No.2/Office at Tirumala in the year, 1992. The petitioner was
placed under suspension with effect from 12.02.2001. The
petitioner was alleged to have indulged in immoral activities of
outraging the modesty of a devotee. The enquiry was conducted
and the petitioner was found guilty and the charges were
framed against him. The disciplinary authority imposed the
punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed an
appeal, which was also rejected. The petitioner filed
W.P.No.26368 of 2008, pending appeal. The said writ petition
was disposed of on 11.12.2008, with a direction to dispose of
the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of that order. Thereafter, the
respondents have dismissed the appeal.
2 HN, J
W.P.Nos.14155 of2014 & 8712 of2009
3. The present writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the
order of dismissal in the appellate order as well. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a memo along
with a copy of the order passed in appeal and also the order of
the criminal appeal passed by the VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tirupati.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was implicated falsely in the case and though he was
convicted by the trial Court, the petitioner was acquitted by the
Sessions Court and submits that it is a clear acquittal as such,
the petitioner ought to be reinstated into service. The petitioner
has raised similar contentions at the appellate stage also before
the appellate authority.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the
petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and the
charges framed against him could not stand legal scrutiny in
the criminal appeal. As such, he is entitled for reinstatement
and consequent benefits.
6.
Learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3
appearing virtually online submits that the act of the petitioner
/
3 HN, J
W,P.Nos.l4l55 of20I4& 8712 of2009
indulging in immoral activities involving a young engineering
student cannot be condoned, on the sole ground that the
petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal appeal. Learned
Standing counsel further submits that the acquittal based on
benefit of doubt cannot be considered as a clear acquittal. As
such, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in the writ
petition. Learned Standing counsel also submits that
appropriate enquiry was conducted and the petitioner also
participated in the enquiry. A fair opportunity was granted to
the petitioner and that it is not the case of the petitioner that a
fair opportunity was not granted in the enquiry before the
Enquiry Officer. It is also submitted that the petitioner has
filed O.S.No.652 of 2002, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil
Judge, Tirupati, challenging the enquiry report and the trial
Court had partly decreed the suit declaring the enquiry report
as null and void.
However, the relief prayed was already
rejected. The allegations are grave and serious and were found
to be proved in the criminal trial and departmental enquiry. As
such, the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service by
issuance of G.O.Ms.No.2GAD, dated 04.01.1991. Learned
Standing counsel also submits that the proceedings before the
4 HN, J
W.P.Nos.14155 of2014 & 8712 of2009
disciplinary authority have a wider scope and the proceedings
are independent of the criminal case.
7.
Heard both the learned counsels and perused the
material placed before this Court.
8.
The allegations against the petitioner are serious m
nature and the enquiry report would also indicate that the
enquiry was conducted in a detailed manner by giving a fair
opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. The acts of the
petitioner indulging in immoral activities with the devotees has
to be sternly dealt with, to ensure the sacredness of the holy
place is to be perused in generations to come. 1 find no reason
to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against
the petitioner and the scope of judicial review is also very
limited as held in the following judgements by the HonTile
Supreme Court:
" The law on the aspect ofjudicial review is settled
in the following judgments. Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited Vs. Western Geco
International Limitedl, Administrator, Union
Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia
i
■ ■ ir.
(2014) 9 see 263
5 HN, J
a W.P.Nos.14155 of2014 & 8712 of 2009
M.Lad2, Disciplinary Authority - Cum - Regional
Manager & Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari PatnaikS,
Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bholanath
Singh & Others4. In all these Judgments the legal
position with respect to exercising the power of Judicial
Review is settled. Unless and until any illegality or
procedural irregularity which would shock the
conscious of the Court or Tribunal, the discretion can be
exercised. It may not matter as to whether there was
no loss which was resulted by the acts of the charged
officer.
In the matter of Bank of India & another Vs.
Degala SuryanarayanaS, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that strict rules of evidence is not applicable
to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only
requirement of law is that the allegation against the
delinquent officer must be established by such
evidence acting upon which reasonable person acting
reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding
upholding the gravamen of the charge against the
delinquent officer. The Court exercising the jurisdiction
of the judicial review would not interfere with the
findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry
proceeding except in a case of malafides or perversity
i.e., where there is no evi.dence to support a finding or
^2010) 5 see 775
^1996) 9 see 69
^(1997) 3 Se 657
/
HN, J
W.P.Nos.14155 of2014 & 8712 of2009
where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably
and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding,
The Court
cannot embark upon re-appreciating the
evidence or
weighing the same like an appellate
authority so long as there is some evidence to support
the conclusion.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union
of India and others Vs.
M.Duraisamy Civil
Appeal.No.266S of 2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the jurisdiction of High Court on the
proportionality of the order of departmental authority is
limited. It is observed that it cannot be set aside a well-
reasoned order only on
grounds of sympathy and
sentiments. It is further observed and held that once it
is found that all the procedural requirements had been
complied with, courts would not ordinarily interfere
with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a
delinquent employee. It is further observed that the
superior courts, only in some cases may invoke the
doctrine ofproportionality, however if the decision of an
employer is found to be within the legal parameters.
the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked when the
misconduct stands proved.
It is no doubt well established law that this Court
exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the
can
petitioner is able to place the case of the petitioner
within the exceptions carved out by the established
7 HN, J
W.P.Nos.14155 of20I4 & 8712 of2009
laiv and the
various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India.
On the facts on hand in the present
case, the
petitioner could not place his case for judicial review by
this Court on the
punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority. Accordingly, this ; Court is not
inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
9.
In the result, the
writ petitions are dismissed, without
costs.
As a sequel miscellaneoi.
IS application, pending, if any.
shall also stand closed.
Sd/- S.SRINIVAS PRASAD
A ASSISTAN-n REGISTRAR
VK^fTOFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
SEC
To,
1. One CC to SRI. P V L BHANU PRAKASH Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to SRI. G RAMA SARMA Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CCs to GP for ENDOWMENTS, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
4. One CC to SRI A PRABHAKAR SARMA, SC for TTD [OPUC]
5. Three CD Copies
Madhu
gl
Note : The typographical mistake Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2
and 3 are corrected in appearance portion. Substitute this Amended Order in
place of earlier Order which was despatched on 12-8-2024.
Sd/- K SRINIVASARAJU
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
HIGH COURT
DATED:30/01/2024
DATED:26/09/2024
AMENDED COMMON ORDER
WP.Nos.14155 of 2014 and 8712 of 2009
2 6 SEP 20?'« nt,
cci
Current Section
DISMISSING THE WPs
WITHOUT COSTS
