Telangana High Court

Kolla Ranga Rao vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 6 July, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                          AND
         THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


              WRIT PETITION No.28131 of 2022

ORDER:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



     Heard Mr. D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms. B.Vijaya Laxmi,

learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for

respondents No.1 to 4; and Mr. Kowturu Pavan Kumar,

learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order

dated 02.07.2022 passed by the Ex-Officio Secretary to the

Government of Telangana, Consumer Affairs and Food &

Civil Supplies (CS.I.RC) Department.

3. By the aforesaid order, State Government of

Telangana has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner

to the post of Member (Judicial) in Telangana State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad

(briefly, 'the State Commission' hereinafter).

4. Petitioner was earlier serving as Grade-I Judicial

Officer in the Telangana Judicial Service. While serving as

XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga

Reddy District, he was placed under suspension pending

drawal of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, charge

sheet was submitted against the petitioner containing as

many as seven articles of charges. Substance of the

charges was that petitioner, as a Judicial Officer, used to

reserve the cases for judgment, but did not pronounce the

judgments for months together. That apart, even in those

cases where judgments were shown as pronounced on

docket, full text of judgments were not available.

5. In the meanwhile, petitioner attained the age of 58

years. On an assessment of continued utility, the High

Court for the State of Telangana took the view that

petitioner should be superannuated on attaining the age of

58 years on the ground that further continuance in service

would be of no utility. Accordingly, petitioner was

compulsorily retired from service on 31.03.2019.

6. After retirement from service as above, petitioner

submitted a representation before the High Court for

dropping of the proceedings. By order dated 13.02.2020,

petitioner was informed that the High Court had decided to

take a lenient view. Having regard to the fact that

petitioner had already been compulsorily retired from

service at the age of 58 years, it was decided to drop all

further proceedings in relation to the disciplinary

proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

7. While the matter rested thus, a recruitment

notification was issued on 08.11.2021 inviting applications

for appointment to the post of Member (Judicial) in the

State Commission. Petitioner applied for the said post and

participated in the written test and interview. It is stated

that the Selection Committee was headed by a Judge of

this Court nominated by the Chief Justice.

8. By notification dated 17.02.2022 of the Ex-Officio

Secretary to the Government of Telangana, Consumer

Affairs and Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I-RC) Department,

two candidates, including the petitioner, were appointed to

the post of Member (Judicial) in the State Commission.

The appointment notification was issued in exercise of the

powers conferred by Rule 6 of the Consumer Protection

(Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment,

procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and

removal of the President and Members of the State

Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 (briefly,

'the 2020 Rules' hereinafter), with immediate effect. It was

stated that Member (Judicial) of the State Commission

would hold office for term of four years or upto the age of

65 years whichever is earlier.

9. Abruptly after about five months of such

appointment, the impugned order came to be issued. The

impugned order says that the Designated Officer - cum -

Assistant Registrar of the State Commission had forwarded

the antecedents verification report of the two officers,

including the petitioner, to the Government as was

submitted by the Additional Director General of Police,

Intelligence Department on 09.03.2022. Adverting to the

suspension of the petitioner and his compulsory

retirement, Additional Director General of Police opined

that candidature of the petitioner for the post of Member

(Judicial) in the State Commission was not suitable.

Thereafter, by the impugned order, the State Government

cancelled the appointment of the petitioner with immediate

effect.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has

referred to the provisions of the 2020 Rules, more

particularly to Rule 6 thereof, which lays down the

procedure for appointment. He submits that the

appointment was made on the recommendation of a

Selection Committee which was headed by the Chief

Justice of the High Court or by his nominee Judge.

Selection Committee made its recommendation keeping in

view requirements of the State Commission and after

taking into account the suitability, record of past

performance, integrity and adjudicatory experience of the

petitioner. As per Rule 6(11) of the 2020 Rules, the State

Government shall verify or cause to be verified the

credentials and antecedents of the recommended

candidates. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to

Rule 8 of the 2020 Rules, as per which a person can be

removed from the office of President or Member if he is

adjudged as an insolvent or convicted of an offence which

involves moral turpitude or if the President or Member has

become physically or mentally incapable of action as such

member or has acquired such financial or other interest as

is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member or

he has abused his position as to render his continuance in

office prejudicial to public interest. None of the above

conditions are attracted in the present case. That apart,

he submits that the impugned order is in complete

violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner's

appointment is for a period of four years. By the impugned

order, the tenure of appointment has been cut short.

Thus, the impugned order has got civil consequences.

Additionally, from the tone and tenor of the impugned

order, it is evident that it is stigmatic. Therefore, petitioner

was required to be put on notice and heard before passing

the impugned order. The same having not been done,

impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

11. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a

decision of the Supreme Court in Shrawan Kumar Jha v.

State of Bihar1, to contend that if the tenure of

appointment is interfered with, it entails civil consequences

which would attract principles of natural justice. He has

also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court

in S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan2 to highlight as to what is

meant by or understood as civil consequences.

12. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that

in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated

01.12.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.2 of 2021

whereby two months time was granted to the States to

complete the process of appointment of

Presidents/Members of the State Consumer Commissions

and District Consumer Commissions, the recruitment

process was undertaken and had to be fast tracked.

Appointment order issued was subject to verification of

credentials. Once the verification process was done and on

1991 Supp (1) SCC 330

(1980) 4 SCC 379

the face of such adverse report, it was not possible for the

State to sustain the appointment of the petitioner.

13. Justifying the impugned order, learned Government

Pleader has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme

Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali

Khan3 and submits that it is not enough to contend that

there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The

person who alleges such violation must also demonstrate

that such violation has caused prejudice to him. Principles

of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket

formula. On the admitted facts, compliance to the

principles of natural justice would be a mere formality as it

would not make any material difference.

14. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties

have received the due consideration of the Court.

15. At the outset, we may advert to the notification dated

17.02.2022 whereby the petitioner was appointed as

AIR 2000 SC 2783

Member (Judicial) of the State Commission. The

notification reads as under:

"N O T I F I C A T I O N In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 6 of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and Members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020, Government hereby appoint the following candidates as Members (Judicial) in the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad with immediate effect.

           Sl.No.         Name of the candidate             Name of post           Name of
                                                                                 Commission
       1             Sri    Vinnakota        Venkata    Member (Judicial)        TSCDRC,
                     Seshubabu                                                   Hyderabad

       2             Sri Kolla Ranga Rao                Member (Judicial)        TSCDRC,
                                                                                 Hyderabad

The Member (Judicial) of the State Commission shall hold office for a term of four (4) years or up to the age of 65 years whichever is earlier as per Rule 10 of Consumer Protection Rules, 2020.

Pay and Allowances payable and other conditions of Services of the Members (Judicial) in the State Commission shall be as per Consumer Protection Rules, 2020"

16. There is nothing in the notification to suggest that

the two appointments were subject to verification of

credentials by the State. It was a regular appointment for

a tenure of four years or upto the age of 65 years whichever

was earlier.

17. Now by the impugned order issued after more than

five months of appointment, State has decided to cancel

the appointment of the petitioner in view of the opinion

expressed by the Additional Director General of Police,

Intelligence Department, that candidature of the petitioner

for the post of Member (Judicial) of the State Commission

was not suitable.

18. Admittedly, no notice or hearing was granted to the

petitioner before the said order was passed. Impact of the

said order is that petitioner's appointment has been

cancelled before completion of tenure. That apart, the

report of the Additional Director General of Police is

certainly adverse to the petitioner. However, we need not

detain ourselves on the question as to whether opinion of

the Additional Director General of Police is stigmatic or not.

Insofar the 2020 Rules are concerned, Rule 8 deals with

removal of President or Member of State Commission or

District Commission from office. Rule 8 of 2020 Rules

reads as under:

"8. Removal of President or Member of State Commission or District Commission from office.-- (1) The State Government shall remove from office any President or member, who--

(a) has been adjudged as an insolvent; or

(b) has been convicted of an offence which involves moral turpitude; or

(c) has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as such member; or

(d) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a member; or

(e) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to public interest:

Provided that where a President or member is proposed to be removed on any ground specified in clauses (c) to (e), the President or member shall be informed of the charges against him and given an opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges."

19. While the petitioner has not been removed from office

on the above grounds, his appointment has been cancelled

in view of the adverse report received from the Additional

Director General of Police. Proviso to Rule 8 of the 2020

Rules says that where a President or Member is proposed

to be removed on any ground specified in clauses (c) to (e),

as extracted above, the President or Member shall be

informed of the charges against him and given an

opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

20. In the instant case, though no charges have been

framed against the petitioner, it is evident that

appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the

basis of the adverse inputs received from the Additional

Director General of Police.

21. In the given facts and circumstances, we feel that it

was necessary on the part of the respondents to have

issued a notice to the petitioner and to grant him

reasonable opportunity before resorting to the drastic

action. That being the position, we set aside the impugned

order dated 02.07.2022 and remand the matter back to

respondent No.1 for a fresh decision in accordance with