Mohammad Abdul Sami, vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 4473 Tel

   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

  W.P.Nos.45857 of 2018, 8251 of 2020, 8659 of 2020, 8856 of 2020 &
                            800 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:


      All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of

common order as the issue raised in all these Writ Petitions, except

W.P.No.4857 of 2018, is one and the same.              The issue in

W.P.No.4857 of 2018 is slightly different but pertaining to the very

same issue.


      2.      Heard Sri Krishna C.M., learned counsel for the

petitioner in W.P.No.45857 of 2018, Sri Sujith Jaiswal, learned

counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8251, 8659 and 8856 of 2020

and 800 of 2021 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue

appearing for respondents in all the Writ Petitions.

3. For the sake of convenience, W.P.Nos.8251, 8659 and

8856 of 2020 and 800 of 2021 are being dealt with first and that the

facts in W.P.No.8251 of 2020 are hereunder discussed for

convenience.

W.P.Nos.8251, 8659 and 8856 of 2020 and 800 of 2021:

4. It has been contended by the petitioner that the

petitioners in all these four cases are visually handicapped persons

and they are basically hailing from Hyderabad District and in order

to pursue their educational needs, the petitioners have moved on to 2 AKS,J W.P.Nos.45857 of 2018 & batch

the neighbouring districts viz., Mahabubnagar and Nalgonda and

after getting necessary qualifications they have returned back to their

parents who are permanent residents of Hyderabad District. The

petitioners have further contended that the respondents had issued a

limited recruitment notification during August 2017 inviting

applications for the post of Kamatee and the petitioners have

responded to the said notification and after undergoing regular

process of selections, they have been selected for the post of

Kamatee by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad and

later in-turn allotted the petitioners to the 3rd respondent-Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad vide proceedings

dt.29-08-2018. In pursuance to the said proceedings, petitioners

have joined duties as Kamatee and discharged their duties to the best

satisfaction of their superiors and everyone concerned.

5. It has been further contended that one Sri Mohd. Abdul

Sami had made allegations vide letter dt.24-09-2018 alleging that the

petitioners have produced bogus parents nativity certificate and he

filed one of the Writ Petition of this batch i.e. W.P.No.45857 of 2018

along with others challenging the appointment of the petitioners.

The petitioners have contended that entertaining the allegations made

by Abdul Sami, the District Collector had issued a show cause notice

on 05-12-2019 as to why the appointment orders given in favour of

the petitioners should not be cancelled on the alleged ground that the 3 AKS,J W.P.Nos.45857 of 2018 & batch

petitioners have produced bogus certificates at the time of their

appointment.

6. The petitioners have submitted detailed explanation to

the said show cause notice on 06-12-2020 denying the charge and

they have also brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent i.e.

G.O.Ms.No.104 dt.24-03-2000 in respect of visually handicapped

and hearing handicapped persons who have studied in the special

schools and in such cases, the nativity of the parents has to be taken

into account for the purpose of determining the local status of a

candidate. But the 2nd respondent has not considered any of the

contentions raised by the petitioners and had passed orders

cancelling the appointment of the petitioners vide proceedings

dt.29-05-2020 and the said proceedings were not even

communicated to the petitioners and the 3rd respondent in-turn had

passed impugned termination orders dt.05-06-2020. Challenging the

same, these Writ Petitions are filed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that

the termination orders are stigmatic in nature and it has been alleged

that the petitioners have produced bogus certificates at the time of

their appointment and whenever such allegation is made, the

respondents ought to have conducted enquiry and also ought to have

made reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case

and after following due procedure, they should have passed a

reasoned order. But in the instant case, the 2nd respondent has issued 4 AKS,J W.P.Nos.45857 of 2018 & batch

show cause notice and petitioners have submitted explanation to the

said show cause notice. The 2nd respondent instead of passing the

orders, the 3rd respondent passed the termination orders. The 3rd

respondent has not even applied his mind and he has only

implemented the orders of 2nd respondent by stating that the 2nd

respondent has instructed him to terminate the services of the

petitioners and accordingly he has passed the impugned termination

orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a

judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Kamal Nayan Mishra

v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1 wherein the Supreme

Court held as under:

"The termination of the appellant without an inquiry or hearing was illegal and invalid. In the normal course, we would have set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, reserving liberty to the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings. But the peculiar facts of this case require us to adopt a slightly different approach to do complete justice between the parties."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further

contended that a perusal of the judgment rendered by the Supreme

Court makes it abundantly clear that whenever any allegations are

levelled against any employee, a reasonable opportunity should be

given to the employee to prove his innocence. But in the instant

case, no opportunity or no enquiry was conducted to ascertain the

truth whether petitioners have really submitted the bogus nativity

certificate of their parents and the respondents have also not

(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 169 5 AKS,J W.P.Nos.45857 of 2018 & batch

considered G.O.Ms.No.104 dt.24-03-2000 which comes to the

rescue of the petitioners. Therefore, impugned termination orders

are liable to be set aside as they have been passed without

conducting any enquiry or without giving any opportunity to the

petitioners.

9. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

the respondents has contended that the 2nd respondent has issued

show cause notice on 05-12-2019 and the petitioners have submitted

an explanation on 06-01-2020. An opportunity was given to the

petitioners to put forth their cases and after not being satisfied with

the explanation of the petitioners, the respondents have rightly

imposed punishment of termination on account of petitioners

producing bogus nativity certificates. Therefore, there are no merits

and the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

10. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the

parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned

termination orders passed by the 3rd respondent on 05-06-2020 are

not passed independently by the 3rd respondent and they were passed

at the instance of 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent's order

dt.29-05-2020 was also not communicated to the petitioners and the

services of the petitioners were terminated on the alleged ground that

they have produced bogus nativity certificates and the said allegation

is of serious in nature which affects the careers of the petitioners and

whenever serious allegations are levelled, the respondents ought to 6 AKS,J W.P.Nos.45857 of 2018 & batch

have conducted a detailed enquiry so as to enable the petitioners to

prove their innocence in the said enquiry. Admittedly, in the instant

case, such enquiry was not conducted and no opportunity was given

to prove their innocence.

11. Therefore, by following the law laid down by the

Supreme Court in Kamal Nayan Mishra (supra 1), the impugned

orders of termination passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings

dt.05-06-2020 are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set

aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners with

all consequential benefits. However liberty is given to the

respondents to follow the due process of law. It is needless to say

that it is left open to the respondents to initiate appropriate action

against the petitioners in accordance with law.

W.P.No.45857 of 2018:

12. In respect of W.P.No.45857 of 2018 is concerned, it is a

case of the petitioners that the petitioners herein have alleged that

some irregular appointments have taken place to the post of Kamatee

in GHMC and the petitioners have submitted their representations to

enquire into the issue about bogus nativity certificates and acting on

the representations of the petitioners, the respondents have initiated

action and terminated the services of petitioners in W.P.Nos.8251,

8659 and 8856 of 2020 and 800 of 2021.

7 AKS,J W.P.Nos.45857 of 2018 & batch

13. As far as this case is concerned, learned counsel for the

petitioners has contended that there are still vacancies of Kamatee in

the 3rd respondent-Corporation. Petitioners herein have submitted

representations to consider their cases for the post of Kamatee on

16-01-2021 but so far respondents have not passed any orders on the

said representation. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that appropriate orders be passed on the representations of

the petitioners directing the respondents to consider their

representations dt.16-09-2021 and also consider the cases of the

petitioners for appointment to the post of Kamatee in any of the

existing vacancies.

14. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for

the respondents has contended that since petitioners' representations

are pending with the respondents, the respondents would consider

the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a reasonable

period of time.

15. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that this Writ

Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the

representation of the petitioners made on 16-09-2021 within a

reasonable period of time.

8 AKS,J W.P.Nos.45857 of 2018 & batch

16. With the aforementioned directions, W.P.Nos.8251,

8659 and 8856 of 2020 and 800 of 2021 are allowed and

W.P.No.45857 of 2018 is disposed of. No costs.

17. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Date: 20-12-2021 kvr