Nadikattu Srinivasa Reddy vs The Union Of India And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1861 Tel

                                               1


           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
                             AND
            HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

                              Writ Petition No.19460 of 2020

ORDER:        (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy)




        This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the following relief:-

                   "a. Call for all the relevant records relating to and connected with the

        order passed in Original Application No. 454 of 2016, dated 7.10.2020 on the

        file of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and set

        aside the same as being legally unsustainable;

                    b. Declare the action of the Respondents in issuing the Memorandum

No.24/767/NSR/Vig/DE, dated 11.04.2016 by the 2nd Respondent through

Lr.No.1/954/NSR, dated 18.4.2016 of the 3rd Respondent as arbitrary;

illegal; unjust; violative of principles of natural justice; and violative of

Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

c. Consequently, direct the Respondents to continue the Applicant in

service till such time Criminal Appeal No.1188 of 2013 on the file of the

Hon'ble High Court at Bombay is disposed off and continue to pay the

allowances which are being paid to him and to which he would be entitled to

being an employee under suspension and pass such other and further order

or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Goda Siva, at

length, who submits that show cause notice dated 11-04-2016 was

issued with pre-judged mind indicating the proposed punishment and;

as such it is bad in law. He also submits that petitioner has filed his

explanation to the show cause notice but no orders could be passed till

date. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner submitted

application for resignation from service to the authorities and the same

is also kept pending. It is lastly stated that show cause notice has

been issued after a period of 2 ½ years from the date of conviction of

the petitioner.

Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned Asst. Solicitor General

of India appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits

that what is impugned is only a show cause notice and instead of filing

explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioner filed OA and also

the present writ petition. It is further stated that petitioner has not

filed his explanation within a period of four weeks as ordained by this

Court. He also submits that the impugned order is in tune with Rule

19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and therefore it cannot be faulted.

This Court at the time of first hearing of the writ petition, passed

the following order:-

"The present writ petition is filed for issue of Writ of Certiorari to

call for the relevant records relating to and connected with the order

passed in O.A.No.454 of 2016, dated 07.10.2020, on the file of the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short, 'the

Tribunal'), and to set aside the same as being legally unsustainable.

By way of interim application, being l.A. No.1 of 2020, the

petitioner has sought for suspension of operation of the order passed

in O.A.No.454 of 2016, dated 07.10.2020, and also sought suspension

of Memorandum No.24/767/NSR/Vig/DE, dated 11.04.2016, issued by

respondent No.2 through Lr.No.1/954/NSR, dated 18.04.2016, of

respondent No.3.

Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri

Sanjeev Gillella, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.1 to 3. Perused the record.

The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition

is that the Tribunal passed the impugned order, without taking note of

the fact that by proceeding dated 11.04.2016, issued by respondent

No.2, though the petitioner was called upon to file objections/reply,

the issue has already been pre-judged by the authorities, as by the

said notice the authority has indicated its mind to impose major

penalty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that,

though the petitioner was convicted a criminal case under the

provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by order, dated

02.09.2013, and the authorities being fully aware of the said criminal

proceedings, kept quiet for more than 2 1/2 years before issuing the

notice dated 11.04.2016, without any valid justification for such delay.

It is submitted that on account of the above factors the petitioner had

approached the Tribunal by impugning the notice issued. Learned

counsel for the petitioner would further submit that against the order,

dated 02.09.2013, whereby the petitioner has been awarded with

punishment in a criminal case, a criminal appeal has been preferred

before the High Court of Bombay, vide Crl.A.No. 1188 of 2013, and

the High Court of Bombay was pleased to suspend the operation of the

sentence awarded by its order, dated 25.10.2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that

the petitioner had enjoyed the stay during the pendency of the O.A.

before the Tribunal and therefore, seeks continuation of the said

protection till the present writ petition is decided by this Court.

Per contra, Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 would submit that the notice, dated 11.04.2016, is only a

notice to which the petitioner can offer his explanation / reply. Instead

of filing explanation / reply, the petitioner rushed to the tribunal by

questioning the notice issued by filing O.A. If only, the petitioner filed

his explanation / reply to the proposal contained in the notice, the

authorities could have considered the same in accordance with law.

Learned standing counsel would also submit that the authorities after

going through the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner,

the orders passed therein and the sentence awarded, have issued the

show cause notice in the year 2016, instead of rushing through the

matter. It is also submitted that the punishment indicated in the

notice is only a proposal, to which the petitioner is required to offer his

explanation and such mention in the notice cannot be considered as

pre-judging the issue. However, learned standing counsel submits

that all the above said facts would be before this Court by way of filing

a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter.

Having given due consideration to the submissions made by the

counsels appearing for the parties as above, prima facie this Court is

not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner with regard to the challenge being made on the ground that

the authority being precluded from initiating action on account of

pendency of criminal appeal, in view of the authoritative

pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dy.

Director of Collegiate Education (Admn) v. S. Nagoor Meera (1995) 3

SCC 377 followed in K.C. Sareen v. CBI (2001) 6 SCC 584. The view

taken in the above two judgments has also been reiterated recently by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of

India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah (2020) SCC Online 234. However,

taking note of the fact that the Tribunal, while disposing of the appeal,

acceded to the alternate submission of the petitioner for grant of three

weeks time to file objections to the notice issued, this Court is of the

view that the petitioner can be directed to file his objections / reply to

the notice dated 11.04.2016 within a period of four (4) weeks from

today, by taking all such pleas available to him in law. Since, on

behalf of the respondents, time is sought for filing counter detailing

the time taken for issuance of the notice, the respondent authorities

shall not adjudicate on the objections / reply to be filed by the

petitioner, till the next date of hearing. Post the matter on

31.12.2020."

Inasmuch as the petitioner is stated have filed his explanation to

the show cause notice dated 11-04-2016, though not within the time

ordained by this Court, but belatedly taking all the pleas, in such

circumstances, it is for the authorities to consider the explanation and

pass a speaking order. Since the matter is pending with the statutory

authority, we do not propose to go into details of the merits of the

case, though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue the case

on merits of the matter.

We do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned show

cause notice. Suffice it to direct the respondent-authorities to consider

the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice

dated 11-04-2016 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance

with law. So far it relates to submission of application seeking to

resign from service, again it is a matter to be considered by the

respondent-authorities and pass appropriate orders in accordance with

law.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

However, it is made clear that if any adverse order is passed against

the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of ten

days. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications

pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

__________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

__________________________ DR.SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date:29.06.2021 Nrg

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

Writ Petition No.19460 of 2020

Date: 29.06.2021

NRG