The State Of Telangana And 3 Others vs Sri A. Anil Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1165 Tel

          HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

           THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                 AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                      WRIT APPEAL No.39 of 2021


                              Date: 12.04.2021
BETWEEN

The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Irrigation and Command Area Development
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and others.


                                                         ... APPELLANTS
AND
A. Anil Kumar.

                                                         ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellants      : GP for Services - II

Counsel for the Respondents     : Party-in-Person


The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy)

Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2021, passed by a learned

Single Judge in WP.No.21789 of 2019, whereby the writ petition has

been allowed, the appellants/respondents have approached this Court.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed

before the learned Single Judge.

3. The facts, in brief, as stated in the writ affidavit, are as follows:

(a) Initially the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant

(Librarian duty) in District Training Centre, Warangal on 08.11.2000,

on a consolidated pay. In 2006, the post of the petitioner was

designated as Steno-Typist-cum-Computer Operator. In 2007,

the Nodal Officer found it difficult to run the Center, by which time,

the petitioner was still continuing in the said post. The petitioner made

an application to the Irrigation Department on 24.05.2007, requesting

to convert his services as a Steno-Typist in the Irrigation Department,

Warangal, since there were vacancies in the said department.

On his representation, the respondent No.1 requested the respondent

No.2 to inform the vacancy position in GLIS (Godavari Lift Irrigation

Scheme) at Warangal. On the instruction of the respondent No.2,

vide letter dated 21.06.2007, the respondent No.4 informed the

District Collector that there is one vacancy of a Typist in the Irrigation

Circle.

(b) In pursuance of the information submitted by the

respondent No.4, vide letter dated 27.06.2007, the District Collector

instructed the respondent No.4 to take in the petitioner as a Typist.

Vide proceedings dated 30.06.2007, the petitioner was appointed as a

Typist on condition of passing of typewriting Telugu. The petitioner

joined on 02.07.2007. Later on, he passed the Telugu typewriting

exam. Therefore, his services were regularized as a Typist.

On completion of the probation period, the petitioner's probation was

also declared with effect from 01.07.2009, vide proceedings dated

01.10.2010 of the respondent No.4.

(c) On declaration of probation, the name of the petitioner was

included in the combined seniority list of Junior Assistant/Typist and he

figured at Sl.No.5 in the final seniority list dated 15.11.2014.

On completion of six years of service as a Typist, he was also

sanctioned Special Grade Promotion Scale with effect from

02.07.2013. The petitioner figured at Sl.No.2 in the provisional

seniority list of Superintendent / Senior Assistant / Junior Assistant /

Record Assistant under the JCR DLIS Circle, Warangal. He passed

Degree and Accounts Test PWD Officers and Subordinates Paper I & II

and became eligible to the post of Senior Assistant. He stood at

Sl.No.1 among the candidates for promotion as a Senior Assistant and

submitted a representation to consider his case for promotion.

(d) While so, one person, namely Smt. Samantha complained

that the petitioner's appointment is irregular. The petitioner too lodged

a complaint that the said lady had produced false educational

certificates. The respondent No.4 while letting the lady off with a minor

penalty of stoppage of one increment, issued a show cause notice to

remove the petitioner from service vide memo dated 18.03.2017.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed WP.No.10299 of 2017 wherein

interim orders were passed suspending the show cause notice and

observing that "... the order shall not preclude the competent authority

to initiate regular disciplinary action if so warranted". Pursuant to the

interim order, the respondent No.4 dropped further action.

(e) However, the respondent No.4 issued a Charge memo dated

16.11.2017, framing three articles of charges against the petitioner,

as under:

"CHARGE-I

As per Rule 3 category 4 of AP Ministerial Service Rules 1998 (Telangana Adoption Orders), Method of appointment of AKS,J W.P.No.21789 of 2019 11 typist is by direct Recruitment (or) by Conversion of Junior Assistants/Typist/Junior Steno/Telephone Operator (or) by appointment by transfer of Record Assistants and other equivalent categories in APGSS (or) by appointment by transfer of members of the AP Last Grade Services. But, Sri A. Anil Kumar has furnished false information regarding his previous employment and cheated the department and got appointed as Typist in Irrigation Department. Thus he has violated the above rule position.

CHARGE-II

As per Act 2 of 1994, No Recruitment in any public service to any post in any class, category or grade shall be made except-

(a) From the panel of candidates selected and recommended for appointment by the PSC where the post is within the purview of the said commission,

(b) From a panel prepared by any selection committee constituted for the purpose in accordance with the relevant rules or orders issued in that behalf, and

(c) From the candidates having requisite qualification and sponsored by the Employment Exchange

(d) Compassionate Appointments in favour of a dependent of the person who dies in harness or who retires from services on medical grounds

(e) Appointments made in favour of a dependent of any person killed in extremist violence or in police firing who is not accused of an offence.

Sri A. Anil Kumar does not belong to any of the above category and also he is not a regular employee in any department earlier and he has worked on monthly remuneration basis only. But furnished false information regarding his previous employment and cheated the department and got appointed as Typist in Irrigation Department, which is highly irregular.

CHARGE-III

As per Rule- 3(1) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Telangana Adaptation Orders 2016) according to which "every Government employee should be devoted to his duty and maintain absolute integrity and discipline" and as per Rule 3(ii), of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, (Telangana Adaptation Orders 2016), no Government employee shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to the prestige of Government.". But, Sri A. Anil Kumar, has produced fake information regarding his previous employment and got appointed as typist."

(f) The petitioner submitted an explanation in response to the

Charge memo on 28.11.2017. Thereafter, one Sri K. Ramachandram,

Executive Engineer, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide memo

dated 04.12.2017. The enquiry officer after conducting an enquiry,

submitted the enquiry report dated 11.06.2018 wherein the charges

were held as not proved. In the meantime, one A. Sudhakar Reddy

was given Additional Charge of the respondent No.4, who returned the

inquiry report and requested the enquiry officer to submit

fresh/revised report. The enquiry officer submitted a report on

05.10.2018 and vide memo dated 12.10.2018, the respondent No.4

directed the petitioner to submit a representation within 15 days.

The petitioner submitted an explanation on 24.10.2018.

(g) Not satisfied by the explanation, the respondent No.4 issued

show cause notice dated 27.06.2019 calling upon petitioner to show

cause as to why punishment of 'removal from services' be not imposed

on him. The show cause notice was issued without furnishing a copy of

the enquiry report. The petitioner contends that the Executive

Engineer, who had issued the show cause notice and the impugned

order, is not competent to take any disciplinary action against him,

as the Superintending Engineer is the disciplinary authority and the

impugned show cause notice is vitiated for the said reason.

4. The aforesaid show cause notice dated 27.06.2019 was

questioned by the petitioner in WP.No.13612 of 2019. The said writ

petition was disposed of by setting aside the show cause notice and

granting liberty to the respondent No.4 to proceed from the stage of

furnishing the enquiry report to the petitioner and conclude the

enquiry proceedings within two months. Subsequently, enquiry was

conducted; petitioner was given an opportunity to submit objections;

he submitted an explanation and thereafter, the respondent No.4

passed the impugned removal order on 16.09.2019. The petitioner has

questioned the said order in WP.No.21789 of 2019.

5. The main thrust of the petitioner's case before the learned

Single Judge was that he did not indulge in suppression of facts or

made any misrepresentation. He had continued in service as a Typist

for over 10 years, that too on a sanctioned post in the Irrigation

Department. On the recommendation of the District Collector,

the petitioner was absorbed in the Irrigation Department vide

proceedings dated 30.03.2007. Vide proceedings dated 27.06.2007,

the District Collector had given his consent for absorption of the

petitioner as a Typist in the Irrigation Department. In this background,

it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that charges leveled against

him were prima facie extraneous and unfounded.

6. The learned Single Judge, having considered the rival

contentions of the parties, came to the conclusion that the disciplinary

action initiated against the petitioner was a malafide exercise of

power; the appointment of petitioner was on the basis of the

recommendation of the District Collector; if the District Collector or the

respondent No.4 had acted contrary to law, appropriate action ought

to have been initiated against them and not against the petitioner;

the petitioner was made a scapegoat for lapses committed by the

District Collector and the respondent No.4 and the punishment

imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the conscious of the Court.

Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in RANJIT THAKUR v.

UNION OF INDIA [(1987) 4 SCC 611]; BHAGAT RAM v. STATE OF

HIMACHAL PRADESH [(1983) 2 SCC 442]; UNION OF INDIA v. G.

GANAYUTHAM [(1997) 7 SCC 463] and SECRETARY, STATE OF

KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the learned Single Judge

held that the impugned removal proceedings were unsustainable in

view of the fact that initiation of disciplinary proceedings were contrary

to the T.S. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1991, since the petitioner has not made a false claim or wrongfully

secured employment as a Typist.

7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Services

- II before us that: proper enquiry was conducted; punishment was

imposed by giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; due

process of law has been followed before passing the impugned

removal orders; the petitioner was guilty of suppression of the fact

that he was not a regular government employee; he had

misrepresented in his representation that he is a regular government

employee and managed to get employment in the Irrigation

Department. Hence, after conducting a detailed enquiry,

the respondents had rightly imposed the punishment of removal from

service.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was absorbed as a Typist

in the Irrigation Department on a sanctioned post. He had continued in

the said post for 10 years. There is no material placed on record to

show that the petitioner had indulged in any misrepresentation or had

secured employment by making a false claim. It was not as if the

petitioner had submitted fake or false documents to secure

employment. On the other hand, his appointment was made by

absorption in the Irrigation Department, pursuant to the

recommendation of the District Collector vide proceedings dated

27.06.2007. The appointment of the petitioner was never in question.

The petitioner having been continued on a sanctioned post by the

respondent authorities, it was arbitrary and unjust to subject him to

disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he was not a regular

government employee.

9. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to convince

this Court to differ with opinion of the learned Single Judge. We do not

find any error of law or perversity in the impugned judgment as sought

to be pointed out by the learned Government Pleader. It is apparent

that on a complaint filed by an aspirant for the promotional post,

disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner, disregarding the

fact that he was absorbed as a Typist in the Irrigation Department and

had continued in the said post for a long period stretching over 10

years. [see SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI

[(2006) 4 SCC 1)]

10. Even on merits, with regard to Charge No.1, it could not be said

that the petitioner had furnished false information since he was

absorbed as a Typist in the Irrigation Department on the

recommendation of the District Collector. With regard to Charge No.2,

it has to be noted that after 10 years, an allegation is made that the

petitioner is alleged to have secured employment contrary to the

service rules. With regard to Charge No.3, alleging production of fake

information regarding his previous employment and getting appointed

as a Typist, the same is covered under Charge No.1 and it could not be

said that the petitioner has acted in any manner, touching upon his

integrity and discipline or that his behaviour was unbecoming of a

public servant or derogatory to the prestige of the Government.

11. Further, it is an admitted fact that initial enquiry report dated

11.06.2018 submitted by the enquiry officer was without any specific

findings against the petitioner vis-à-vis the charges leveled against

him. However, the disciplinary authority returned the enquiry officer's

report requesting the enquiry officer to resubmit his enquiry report

vide memo dated 26.09.2018 with specific remarks on each of the

charges. Pursuant thereto the enquiry officer had again submitted the

enquiry report on 05.10.2018, however, copy of earlier enquiry report

dated 11.06.2018 was not furnished to the petitioner. These events

show that from inception, the disciplinary authority had a prejudice

against the petitioner and on this count also, the impugned

proceedings stood vitiated.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity

in the impugned judgment that warrants any interference. There are

no merits in the writ appeal which is hereby dismissed along with the

pending miscellaneous petitions, if any with no order as to costs.

_____________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J April 12, 2021 DSK