Mekala Venkata Ramana vs The Chief General Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 3826 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                WRIT PETITION NO.31154 OF 2021


                               ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to

call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent

bearing Memo No.SE/Op/S/Gr.Hyd/DE(T)/JAO/ADM.A1(DC)/D.No.

1070/21, dt.01.09.2021 and the proceedings of the 1st respondent

bearing Memo No.CGM/MZ/Hyd/GM/AS/AAO/JAO/2015-A1/2021,

dt.05.11.2021 and to declare them as illegal and arbitrary and to quash

the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into

service with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner submitted that he was appointed as a Field Man

with the respondents in the year 2002 and the 3rd respondent has issued

proceedings dt.31.08.2017 appointing the petitioner on contract basis.

Vide orders dt.19.12.2019, the petitioner was absorbed as Artisan Grade-

II in the time scale of pay with usual allowances. It is submitted that on

20.12.2019, the Superintendent of Police has allegedly submitted a

verification report before the 3rd respondent stating that on conducting W.P.No.31154 of 2021

enquiry, it is found that there was no criminal case pending against the

petitioner during study period and that the SSC certificate submitted by

the petitioner is also found to be genuine. It is submitted that on

01.09.2021, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings

terminating the services of the petitioner on an alleged report of the

Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole mentioning that the

petitioner had not studied electrician course and the certificate to that

effect submitted by the petitioner is fake. Challenging the termination

order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, but the 1st

respondent has dismissed the same by way of a non-speaking order, i.e.,

one line order. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Notice was ordered to the respondents and they have filed counter

affidavit.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments

in the counter affidavit and states that enquiry was made and it was

found that the petitioner had submitted fake certificates and therefore a

decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner. There is

only a reference to the appellate authority's order in dismissing the

petitioner's appeal in view of grave irregularity committed by the W.P.No.31154 of 2021

petitioner, i.e., fabricating fake certificates and obtaining employment

on the basis of the same.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cotton

Corporation of India Ltd., and another Vs. Vignesh S.1 and the

decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Cotton

Corporation of India Ltd., and another Vs. Janardhan Gopal

Panchal2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Gopal Rao, on the other

hand, placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of V.P.Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and others3 for the

proposition that even a temporary servant is also entitled to certain

protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively

without complying with the principles of natural justice. He also placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries4 for the

proposition that where there is violation of principles of natural justice

Civil Appeal No.6985 of 2021 dt.22.11.2021

W.A.Nos.240, 242, 243, 275, 279 and 911 of 2017 dt.21.03.2022

(2000) 3 SCC 239

(1999) 2 SCC 21 W.P.No.31154 of 2021

and the enquiry is conducted behind the back of the employee, the same

is not tenable.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

it is noticed that the enquiry about the certificates submitted by the

petitioner was conducted by the police on the request of the respondent

authorities and there was no adverse remark thereon as per the

certificate dt.20.12.2019. However, there is a reference to the report of

the Superintendent of Police of Prakasam District dt.30.09.2019 which

is prior to the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool

dt.20.12.2019 certifying that the documents submitted by the petitioner

are found to be genuine. However, the letter of the Superintendent of

Police, Prakasam dt.30.09.2019 was not confronted to the petitioner and

no explanation has been called for from the petitioner. The respondents

without conducting any further enquiry and without calling for any

explanation from the petitioner, had issued the impugned order

dt.01.09.2021 terminating the services of the petitioner. The appeal filed

by the petitioner has also been dismissed without passing any speaking

order. It is trite law that an order has to stand on the reasons given

therein and the counter affidavit cannot substitute the reasons for the

termination order or dismissal of the appellate order. The decisions on W.P.No.31154 of 2021

which the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon

are on merits of the issue, but not on violation of principles of natural

justice.

8. In the case of Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., and another

Vs. Vignesh S. (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the

notice issued to the petitioners therein with regard to the findings on the

experience certificate and after considering the explanation of the

petitioners, an order of termination was passed. Therefore, the said

decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case before this Court.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam

Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries (4 supra) has clearly held that

when an enquiry is conducted, the petitioner or the concerned employee

or the concerned person has to be given an opportunity to submit his

explanation and thereafter, only after considering the explanation, a

decision can be taken.

10. Since no such exercise has been done by the respondents herein,

this Court is of the opinion that both the impugned order dt.01.09.2021

as well as the consequential appellate order dt.05.11.2021 are issued in

violation of principles of natural justice and they are accordingly liable W.P.No.31154 of 2021

to be set aside. The impugned orders dt.01.09.2021 and 05.11.2021 are

accordingly set aside with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the

petitioner into service with consequential benefits. The respondents are

however given liberty to proceed against the petitioner by following the

due procedure of law and after giving the petitioner an opportunity to

submit his explanation.

11. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 22.07.2022 Svv