Telangana High Court
Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., ... vs D.B. Papa Raju, on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.939 of 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
11.10.2017 passed in W.P.No.7223 of 2000 by the learned
Single Judge.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondents before this Court are the legal heirs of the
deceased employee, who was charge sheeted on
15/16.09.1989 by the Chief General Manager (Training and
Education), Singareni Collieries Company Limited, alleging
certain irregularities committed by him for the years 1985-86,
1986-87 and 1987-88. The deceased employee during his life
time has submitted explanation on 23.09.1989 and thereafter
an Enquiry Officer was appointed in the matter. Based upon
the enquiry report, his services were terminated by order
dated 13.03.1995. The deceased employee preferred a writ
petition before this Court i.e., W.P.No.5368 of 1995
challenging the order of termination as it was passed without
obtaining prior approval of the competent authority as
required under Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982
(hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1982"). The writ petition
was allowed as there was no approval by the competent
authority by an order dated 07.04.1995 and the
appellant/Singareni Collieries Company authorities were
directed to make payment to the deceased employee till a
decision is taken by the Regional Joint Director as required
under Section 79 of the Act of 1982.
The facts further reveal that the deceased employee was
continued in service. However, he was not paid salary.
Therefore, he again preferred a second writ petition i.e.,
W.P.No.20694 of 1997 seeking payment of salary till approval
was accorded by the competent authority as required under
the Act of 1982. It is pertinent to note that on 24.12.1997,
the Regional Joint Director, who is the competent authority
under the Act of 1982, has granted approval and again order
was passed on 30.09.1998 terminating the services of the
deceased employee. Against the said order, an appeal under
Section 88 of the Act of 1982 was preferred before the Joint
Director of School Education, Warangal, by the deceased
employee and the same was dismissed on 16.01.2000.
Another writ petition was also preferred by the petitioner
being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 30.09.1998
and the order passed by the appellate authority dated
16.01.2000 before this Court and the learned Single Judge
has allowed the writ petition. The short point, which has
been considered by the learned Single Judge, is that the order
of termination dated 30.09.1998 was passed by an authority
not competent to do so. It was categorically stated before the
learned Single Judge that the appointing authority of the
deceased employee was the Chief General Manager (Training
and Education) and the order of termination was passed by
the Additional Chief Mining Engineer. The learned Single
Judge, after considering the arguments canvassed by the
learned counsel for the parties, has allowed the writ petition.
Paras 15 to 19 of the order passed by the learned Single
Judge read as under:
"15. It is stated that the order of termination and
proposals to pass order of termination met the approval of
the competent authority i.e. Chairman and Managing
Director; that he has approved it at the relevant moment of
time, that entire Education and Training Department was
under control of Additional Chief Mining Engineer and the
latter can pass the order of termination; and so, the said
officer passed the order of termination.
16. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2 has not been able to produce any material to show
that in fact there was any delegation by the Chairman and
Managing Director to the Additional Chief Mining Engineer
in regard to passing of orders of termination of the services
of the petitioner. Therefore, the contention raised in the
counter affidavit by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that there
was a approval of the competent authority for terminating
the services of the petitioner and also delegation by the said
competent authority to the Additional Chief Mining
Engineer to pass the impugned order of termination, is not
supported by any evidence. Accordingly, the said contention
is rejected.
17. Therefore, it has to be held that there was no
approval by the competent authority i.e. Chairman and
Managing Director for the termination of the services of the
petitioner, and there is no delegation either by the said
authority to the Additional Chief Mining Engineer to pass
the impugned order of termination. Consequently the
Additional Chief Mining Engineer had no jurisdiction to
pass the impugned order of terminating the services of the
petitioner.
18. The 1st petitioner however died during the pendency
of the Writ Petition and his legal representatives are
brought on record on 27-11-2012 in W.P.M.P.No.28267 of
2011.
19. In view of my findings that the Additional Chief
Mining Engineer/Chief General Manager (Training and
Education) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order,
the said order is set aside; the 1st petitioner is deemed to
be in service from that date till the date he would have
superannuated from the services; and his legal heirs shall
be paid all the benefits including salary increments etc.
which he would have drawn till he attained the age of
superannuation. This exercise shall be completed within
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order."
The order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals
that a statement was made before the learned Single Judge
stating that the powers of the Chairman and Managing
Director to terminate the services were delegated to the
Additional Chief Mining Engineer. However, no material was
brought on record to show that the power was delegated to
the Additional Chief Mining Engineer.
I.A.No.1 of 2021 has been filed and the notings in the
file relating to deceased employee have been brought on
record. The date on the notings starts from 22.06.1994 and
the last noting, which has been signed is 02.09.1994.
Meaning thereby, the notings in the file relates to earlier
termination order dated 13.03.1995. Before this Court also
no document has been filed even in the writ appeal
establishing that the subsequent order of termination dated
30.09.1998 was passed by the competent authority i.e., Chief
General Manager (Training and Education). Nothing
prevented the appellant/employer to file the notings of the
year 1998 in the manner and method the notings of the year
1994 have been filed. The notings of the year 1994 are not
relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present writ
appeal. The termination order issued based upon 1994
notings has already been set aside in the earlier round of
litigation and thereafter liberty was granted to pass a fresh
order after obtaining approval of the competent authority
under the Act of 1982.
In the considered opinion of this Court, as no single
document has been filed to show that the competent
authority i.e., Chief General Manager (Training and
Education) has delegated his powers to the Additional Chief
Mining Engineer, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
It is an undisputed fact not controverted by the present
appellant that the appointing authority and the authority to
pass an order of termination in the present case of the
deceased employee was the Chief General Manager (Training
and Education) and not the Additional Chief Mining Engineer.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
03.12.2021
ES
