Smt. Smt. Kavali Adilaxmi vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 642 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 642 Tel
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

Smt. Smt. Kavali Adilaxmi vs The State Of Telangana on 15 February, 2022

Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

               WRIT PETITION No.7442 of 2022
ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned Standing

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5. With their

consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed of by this

order.

Questioning the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by

respondent No.2 - District Collector (PW), Ranga Reddy,

suspending the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of

Kondurg Gram Panchayat, without considering the

explanation of the petitioner dated 07.11.2021, the petitioner

has filed the present Writ Petition.

Even though elaborate arguments are advanced by the

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

Government Pleader on various grounds and issues, this Court 2 AAR, J W.P.No.7442 of 2022

is not inclined to go into the merits or demerits of the case,

but, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter

has to be remanded back on the simple ground that the

impugned order passed by respondent No.2 does not refer to

the explanation submitted by the petitioner even though in the

references cited in the impugned order that the explanation of

the petitioner dated 07.11.2021 has been received, and also on

the ground that the said impugned order does not specify the

period of suspension.

In Bandarupalli Venkateswarlu v. Government of

Andhra Pradesh and others1, the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh held at paragraph No.13 as under:

"The succinct meaning of the expression 'natural justice' has been summarized by David Robertson in the Penguin Dictionary of Politics, New edition, at page 337 as follows:

"By natural justice is meant the ideas that there are some qualities and values inherent in the very concept of law, as opposed to arbitrary decision-making, and that individuals should be able to claim certain basic protections in the legal system regardless of whether they are specifically given those protections by statute.

The two most common tenets of natural justice in the British legal system are audi alter am partem (that each

MANU/AP/0494/1995 3 AAR, J W.P.No.7442 of 2022

party has a right to be heard in any dispute) and Nemo judex in parte sua (that the Judge of a case should have no personal interest in its outcome). In the United Kingdom in the 1960 these quite specific principles of natural justice were applied to a large number of administrative as well as judicial decision-making situations, and as a result the British judiciary both expanded its own jurisdiction and developed something which it had previously lacked-a coherent corpus of administrative law."

In Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar2, the Apex Court held as under:

"Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the Inquiry Officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of the employee against it."

In Adduri Surya Subhadrayyamma v. The Collector

(PW) and others3, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh

held at paragraph 10 as under:

"Without giving any reasons, in one go the District Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner misappropriated Rs.68,309/-. Such method and manner of considering the allegations is not contemplated under Section 265(1) of the Act. As already held above Section 265(1) of the Act requires a specific finding that of loss to Gram Panchayat is a direct consequence of misconduct or gross negligence and that the Sarpanch has not acted in good faith. All these were not considered by the District Collector. As the very exercise of power is not in accordance with Section 265(1) of the Act, it must be held that the order suffers from malice in law. It is well settled principle of administrative law that if a decision maker fails

MANU/SC/0237/1994

MANU/AP/0206/2010 4 AAR, J W.P.No.7442 of 2022

to appreciate the facts property or fails to apply the law properly such order would be vitiated by illegality."

In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department,

Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers4, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

".... while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the authority concerned should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order ....

.... A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant."

Having regard to the above, this Writ Petition is allowed

and the impugned order dated 21.01.2022 passed by

respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted

4 (2010) 4 SCC 785 5 AAR, J W.P.No.7442 of 2022

back to respondent No.2 for passing orders afresh strictly in

accordance with law, duly taking into consideration the

explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is needless to

observe that in case the respondent No.2 is relying on an

enquiry report or any other material to pass order afresh, the

copy of the same shall be furnished to the petitioner and he

shall be given an opportunity to submit his explanation to the

said enquiry report/material and then pass order on merits.