Telangana High Court
B. Sanjeeva Reddy vs Southern Power Distribution ... on 25 November, 2022
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No. 13257 of 2020
Between:
B.Sanjeeva Reddy
... Petitioner
And
Southern Power Distribution Co. and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.11.2022
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
______________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
WP_13257_2020
2 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No. 13257 of 2020
% 25.11.2022
Between:
# B.Sanjeeva Reddy
..... Petitioner
And
$ Southern Power Distribution Co. and others
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. V.Ravichandran
^Counsel for the Respondents: Standing counsel for
TSTRANSCO
? Cases Referred:
WP_13257_2020
3 SN,J
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.13257 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue an
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting-aside the order issued
by the 2nd respondent in imposing the penalty of stoppage of
one (1) annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides
treating the period of suspension from 12.07.2006 to
20.07.2008 as leave to which the petitioner is eligible by
indicating the punishment in the show cause notice even before
communication of disagreement factors vide Memo.
No.CGM(HRD)/GM(Adm)/AS/DC.I/PO (DC. I)/341-C1/06 dated
19.07.2014 though the enquiry officer has held that the charges
are not proved and the related appellate/revisional/review
orders issued by the 3rd respondent vide Memo. No.CGM
(HRD)/GM (IR, L & Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)341-C1/06 dated
10.10.2014, Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR. L &
WP_13257_2020
4 SN,J
Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06 dated 20.08.2015 and
Memo. No. CGM (HRD)/GM (Per)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06,
dated 06.05.2020 modifying the punishment to that of without
effect besides treating the period of suspension as on leave to
which the petitioner is eligible, as being arbitrary, illegal,
erroneous, vitiated by subject bias, based on no evidence,
opposed to principles of natural justice and in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to hold
that the petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be
notionally promoted as Divisional Engineer with effect from the
date of promotion of the 5th respondent with all consequential
benefits and also be considered for promotion to the post of
Superintending Engineer in the interest of justice.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant
Engineer w.e.f 11.08.1991 in the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board
and was later promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer w.e.f
31.07.1999.
b) While working as such, the petitioner was arrested in
connection with a disproportionate assets case registered by the
Anti Corruption Bureau in Crime No. 14/ACB-HRD/06 and
hence, he was placed under suspension w.e.f 12.07.2006 and
later reinstated into service w.e.f. 20.08.2008. While the
WP_13257_2020
5 SN,J
petitioner was under suspension, the authorities have effected
promotions, during the year 2007, to the posts Divisional
Engineer and the case of the petitioner was ignored on the
ground that he was under suspension. Consequent to the
reinstatement, the petitioner was accorded promotion as
Divisional Engineer in the year 2009 and he was working as
such till date and he is fully eligible and qualified for promotion
to the post of superintending Engineer basing on the placement
assigned in the seniority list.
c) The case is registered by ACB and the Government has
entrusted the matter to the Commissioner of Inquiries, as there
was no material to grant sanction for criminal prosecutions.
The 2nd respondent has mechanically reproduced the charges
furnished by the ACB instead of independently examining the
material on record.
d) The gist of the allegations contained in the charge memo
is that the petitioner was in possession of assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income
Rs.1,55,86,779/- and that he has not obtained prior permission
while buying properties, that he did not disclose the NRI funds
received and that he did not submit any Annual Property
Returns. Denying the allegations contained in the charge
memo, he had submitted a detailed explanation dated
18.07.2009 inter alia stating that the petitioner has regularly
WP_13257_2020
6 SN,J
submitted Annual Property Returns, that there is no provision in
the rules mandating the employee to disclose receipt of NRI
funds.
e) The Commissioner of Inquiries has conducted an
elaborate enquiry and finally submitted report on 29.07.2011
holding that the charges are not proved. Though the report was
submitted as early as in the month of July 2011, the
respondents took more than two and half years to initiate
further disciplinary proceedings. The 2nd respondent has
concluded to impose the punishment of one annual grade
increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of
suspension period from 12.07.2006 to 20.08.2008 as leave to
which the petitioner is eligible.
f) A perusal of the contents of the above order dated
19.07.2014 would disclose that the 2nd respondent has omitted
reasons for not accepting the petitioner's explanation to the
show cause notice.
g) The petitioner invoked the remedy of Appeal dated
02.08.2014 before the 3rd respondent. The same was rejected
vide Memo No. CGM (HRD)/GM (IR, L & Adm)/AS(DC)PO
(DC.I)341-C1/06, dated 10.10.2014. The 3rd respondent too,
has omitted to assign any reason for rejecting the appeal of the
petitioner. The 3rd respondent has modified the punishment to
that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect
WP_13257_2020
7 SN,J
vide Memo No. CGM (HRD)/GM (IR. L & Adm)/AS(DC)PO
(DC.I)/341-C1/06 dated 20.08.2015.
h) The petitioner preferred a Review Petition inter alia stating
that suspension period ought to have been treated as on duty,
that several individuals who were facing disciplinary proceedings
are granted promotions, and that his juniors would march over
him in the matter of promotions. Prior to framing charges, the
petitioner approached the High Court as his case was not
considered for promotion and thereafter he was promoted as
Divisional Engineer w.e.f. 23.10.2009 and nine of his juniors got
promotion in the interregnum. However, the same was rejected
vide memo No. CGM (HRD)/GM (Per)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-
C1/06, dated 06.05.2020. Therefore, this petition is filed.
4. The counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the
following judgments and prayed for allowing the writ
petition :
a) Judgment dated 17.12.2003 passed in W.P.No.18519 of
2003 reported in 2004 (4) ALT 561 in Syed Hussain Aga v.
Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad
(Urban District & Others) in particular Paras 12 and 13 on
the point that if a notice discloses that a decision adverse to the
interest of an individual has already been taken and the
individual is required to show cause without indicating any
WP_13257_2020
8 SN,J
particular aspect such an exercise cannot be permitted to be
undertaken.
b) Judgment dated 22.12.1988 reported in Civil Appeal
Nos.3212, 3214 and 3518 of 1979 in (AIR 1989 SC 568)
H.L.Trehan & Others vs. Union of India & Others, in
particular, para 11 on the point that any arbitrary or whimsical
exercise of power prejudicially effecting the existing conditions
of service of a Government servant will offend against the
provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, in
brief is as follows:
a) The DISCOM Board out rightly rejected the review petition
dated 02.03.2020 of the petitioner. The petitioner having kept
quite after rejection of the appeal by the DISCOM Board vide
Memo dated 10.10.2014 and having preferred 2nd appeal which
in fact is not maintainable and having kept quite after
modification of the punishment order dated 20.08.2015 is
estopped from filing review petition dated 20.03.2020 and also
estopped from filing the present writ petition.
b) There is no provision in the Rules and Regulations of the
1st respondent to entertain any revision petition against the
orders of the appellate authority. However, the respondent
authority entertained the revision petition of the petitioner
WP_13257_2020
9 SN,J
exercising the powers of revision. In such view, the grounds
raised by the petitioner that the 2nd and 3rd respondents having
modified the punishment ought to have treated the period of
suspension as on duty for all purposes instead of leave to which
the petitioner is eligible, is untenable and against the service
regulations. The Apex Court in catena of decisions held that an
employee even after getting acquittal in a criminal case does
not automatically become entitled to the consequential benefits.
Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to
all the judgments as explained in the counter affidavit
filed by respondent No.2 and in particular relied upon the
following judgments and prayed for the dismissal of the
writ petition:
a) The Judgment dated 28.02.1997 in (1997 3 SCC 636)
Krishnakanth Raghunath Bibhavnekar v State of
Maharashtra and Others.
b) The Judgment dated 28.10.1996 in (1996(11) SCC
603) Ranchoodi Chaturji Thakore Vs. The Superintending
Engineer, Gujarath Electricity Board).
c) The of Judgment dated 03.11.1993 in (AIR 1994 SC
552) The Management of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Shri
Bhopal Singh Panchal.
WP_13257_2020
10 SN,J
PERUSED THE RECORD :
7. The counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 at
3.17 and Para 4(c), as under :
"3.17 It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner had no
right under law to file Review Petitions after disposal of the
Appeal by order vide Memo.No. CGM(HRD)/GM(IR, L
&Adm)/AS(DC)/ PO(DC.I)/341-C1/06, dated 10.10.2014.
Therefore the rejection of the 2nd Review Petition vide
Memo.No. CGM(HRD)/GM(Per)/AS(DC)/PO(DC.I)/341-C1/06,
dt.06.05.2020 does not create any cause of action to the
petitioner to file the present Writ Petition challenging the order
dated 19-07-2014 imposing punishment of Stoppage one
annual grade increment with cumulative effect. The order in
Appeal dated 10-10-2014 confirming the aforementioned
punishment and the order in Review Petition dated 20-08-2015
modifying the punishment from Stoppage one annual grade
increment with cumulative effect, to that of Stoppage one
annual grade increment without cumulative effect in lump sum
have become final.
4.c. However, his name will be examined for promotion
to the cadre of Superintending Engineer whenever his
name comes up in Seniority.
8. The inquiry report of the Inquiry Authority,
Commissioner of Inquiry dated 29.07.2011 relating to
charges leveled against the petitioner and the conclusion
arrived at is as follows :
CHARGE No.I : The D.A. has stated that the charged
officer acquired assets disproportionate to his known
source of income worth Rs.1,55,86,779/- while working
in various capacities by corrupt and dubious means.
FINDING ARRIVED AT : I hold that charge I against the
Charged Officer is not substantiated.
WP_13257_2020
11 SN,J
CHARGE No.II & IV : are linked together, charge II is
that Charged Officer acquired movable and immovable
properties in his name and in the names of his family
members without obtaining prior sanction from the
Competent Authorities and not informed to the
Department. Charge IV is that the Charged Officer failed
to submit Annual Property Returns to the Department
from the date of his joining.
FINDING ARRIVED AT : I hold that charge II and Charge
IV against the Charged Officer are not substantiated.
CHARGE No. III : Relates to the Charged Officer and his
wife received foreign remittance amounting to
Rs.75,65,065/- by way of bank transactions into their
bank accounts.
FINDING ARRIVED AT : I hold that Charge III against
the Charged Officer is not substantiated.
9. A bare perusal of the show cause notice issued to
the Petitioner vide Memo dated 20.06.2014, paras 4, 5 &
6 read as under :
"4. The undersigned has carefully examined the enquiry report
forwarded by the Principal Secretary to Government, Energy
Department with reference to the charges framed against Sri
B.Sanjeeva Reddy, ExADE, his explanation to the charge sheet
and findings of the Inquiry Authority thereon and observed that
regarding Charge.II & IV, Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, ExADE (Now
DE/M&P/Medak) has failed to submit the Annual Property
Returns which he alleged to have submitted to department. The
Charged Officer has submitted Annual Property Returns and
enclosed the copies of Statements of properties for the years
1/1/2000 to 31/12/05 though he was appointed on regular
basis w.e.f. 11.08.1992, appears to have been submitted on
17.03.2006 in his written submission to the Commissioner of
Inquiries, is not received in this office. As per the statements,
he has submitted the property returns for the whole 5 years of
period i.e. from the calendar years 2000-2005 at a time instead
of submitting every calendar year which attracts the Rule 5 of
Possession of Properties of APSEB (Revised) Conduct
WP_13257_2020
12 SN,J
Regulations as adopted by the APCPDCL. The Charged Officer
has submitted his Consolidated Annual Property Return from
01.01.1995 to 30.06.2010 which is received through
SE/O/Medak vide letter dt. 03.07.2010. Hence come to the
provisional conclusion to award the punishment of
"Stoppage of one annual grade increment with
cumulative effect besides treating the period of
suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to
which he is eligible" against Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex.
ADE/0/ Greenlands (Now Divisional Engineer/O&M.II/
Corporate Office/APCPDCL for the above said lapses on
his part.
5. A copy of the enquiry report is enclosed herewith.
6. Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Divisional Engineer is therefore
directed to show cause within 15 days from the date of
receipt of this memo as to why the punishment proposed
in para 4 above should not be imposed against him for
the charge held proved against him.
10. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings dated
19.07.2014 of the 2nd Respondent herein, paras 6, 7 and
8 read as under :
"6. The undersigned has carefully examined the explanation
submitted by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy. Ex.ADE (Now Divisional
Engineer) with reference to the material available on record
and decided to confirm the punishment proposed in the show
cause notice i.e. ""Stoppage of one annual grade increment
with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension
from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which he is
eligible" against Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Divisional Engineer.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered that one annual grade increment of
Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex. Assistant Divisional
WP_13257_2020
13 SN,J
Engineer/O/Green lands (Now Divisional Engineer/O&M/
Corporate Office shall be stopped with cumulative effect".
8. He is informed that under Regulation 18 of APSEB
Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations as adopted by
APCPDCL one Appeal lies with the DISCOM Board /CPDCL
against these orders within 3 months from the date of receipt
of the orders, if the charged officer proposes to Appeal.
11. A bare perusal of the impugned Memo dated
10.10.2014 of the 2nd Respondent herein, paras 8 & 9
read as under :
"8. The appeal preferred by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex-
ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/O&M-II/Corporate Office) has
been carefully examined by the Discom Board in its meeting
held on 23.09.2014 and "resolved that the appeal preferred by
Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex-ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/O&M-
II/ Corporate Office) against the final orders issued to him
awarding the punishment of "Stoppage of one annual grade
increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of
suspension from 12.07.2006 FN to 20.08.2008 AN as leave to
which he is eligible" be and is hereby rejected".
9. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy,
Ex ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/O&M-II/Corporate Office)
against the final orders is hereby rejected.
12. A bare perusal of the impugned Memo dated
20.08.2015 of the 2nd Respondent herein, paras 5 & 6
read as under :
"5. The appeal preferred by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex.
Assistant Divisional Engineer (Now DE has been carefully
examined by the Discom Board in its meeting held on
06.08.2015 and "resolved that appeal preferred by Sri
WP_13257_2020
14 SN,J
B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex.ADE/O/Greenlands (Now DE/O&M.
II/Corporate Office) against the final orders issued to him
awarding the punishment of "Stoppage of one annual grade
increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of
suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which
he is eligible for his gross negligence and dereliction of duties
towards non-submission of annual property returns is
considered and the punishment was modified to "Stoppage of
one annual grade increment without cumulative effect" besides
treating the period of suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08
AN as leave to which he is eligible" be and is hereby approved".
6. Accordingly, one annual grade increment of Sri B.Sanjeeva
Reddy, Ex. Assistant Divisional Engineer/O/Greenlands (Now
DE/D&M.II/ Corporate Office) shall be stopped without
cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension
from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which he is
eligible.
13. A bare perusal of the impugned Memo dated
06.05.2020 of the 2nd Respondent herein rejecting the
review petition submitted by the Petitioner, para 5 reads
as under :
"5. The Review Petition submitted by Sri B.Sanjeev Reddy, Ex
ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/Op/Mahaboobnagar) has been
placed before the Discom Board. In its meeting held on
27.03.2020, the Discom Board has examined the Review
Petition and has resolved that, Review petition submitted by Sri
B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex-ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/
Op/Mahaboobnagar) against the appeal consideration orders
issued to him duly awarding the punishment of "Stoppage one
annual grade increment without cumulative effect" besides
treating the period of suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08
AN as leave to which he is eligible" is rejected.
WP_13257_2020
15 SN,J
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
14. A bare perusal of the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry
Authority, Commissioner of Inquiry dated 29.07.2011
clearly indicates that all the four charges leveled against
the petitioner were held as not substantiated. However,
the petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice dated
20.06.2014 after a period of more than two and half
years. A bare perusal of the show cause notice dated
20.06.2014 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein clearly
indicates that even before an explanation is called for
from the petitioner, the 2nd Respondent has provisionally
concluded to impose the punishment of one annual grade
increment with cumulative effect besides treating the
period of suspension from 12.07.2006 to 20.08.2008 as
Leave. The same indicates that the 2nd Respondent has
pre-judged and pre-determined the issue even before the
submission of explanation by the petitioner to the show
cause notice and the same would amount to post-
decisional hearing.
15. A bare perusal of the consequential proceedings
impugned in the present Writ Petition dated 10.10.2014,
clearly indicates that except extracting the charges and
narration of the case of the petitioner no reasons are
WP_13257_2020
16 SN,J
assigned at all by the 2nd Respondent in rejecting the
Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the final
orders passed against the petitioner.
16. A bare perusal of the consequential impugned
Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR. L & Adm)/AS/DC/PO
(DC.I)/341-C1/06, dated 20.08.2015 indicates that the
punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment
with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension
from 12.07.2006 forenoon to 20.08.2008 afternoon as
leave to which he is eligible as having been modified to
punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment
without cumulative effect besides treating the
suspension from 12.07.2006 forenoon to 20.08.2008
afternoon as leave to which he is eligible.
17. A bare perusal of the consequential impugned
proceedings dated 06.05.2020 indicates that the review
petition submitted by the petitioner as having been
rejected by the 2nd respondent without assigning any
reasons.
18. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2009 (2)
SCC 570 in Rup Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank &
Others, dated 19.12.2008 held that the order of the
Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Authority
WP_13257_2020
17 SN,J
entails civil consequences and hence, the orders must be
based on recorded reasons. At para 23 of the said
judgment, it is observed as under :
Para 23 :
Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the
appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the
orders passed by them have severe civil consequences,
appropriate reasons should have been assigned.
The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt
are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on
some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of
the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental
proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the
report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as
also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been
sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer
apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as
is well known, however high may be, can under no
circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.
19. The Apex Court in Judgment reported in 2010 (13)
SCC 427 in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of
India & Others, decided on 29.10.2010 in C.A.
No.9489/2010 at paras 31, 32, 33, and 34, observed as
under :
"31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be
read hyper-technically and it is well settled that it is to be read
reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show-
cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an
impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the
allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his
innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a
person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to
the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will
merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of
prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not
commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a
quasi- judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which
promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable
opportunity of defence.
WP_13257_2020
18 SN,J
32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the
authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as
they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the
person proceeded against and specially when he has the power
to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a
show cause notice.
33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must
eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to
quasi judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire
confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it.
34. A somewhat similar observation was made by this Court in
the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja
Shankar Pant & others, (2001) 1 SCC 182. In that case, this
court was dealing with a show cause notice cum charge-sheet
issued to an employee. While dealing with the same, this Court
in paragraph 25 (page 198 of the report) by referring to the
language in the show cause notice observed as follows:
"25. Upon consideration of the language in the show-
cause notice-cum-charge-sheet, it has been very
strongly contended that it is clear that the Officer
concerned has a mindset even at the stage of framing of
charges and we also do find some justification in such a
submission since the chain is otherwise complete."
After paragraph 25, this Court discussed in detail the
emerging law of bias in different jurisdictions and
ultimately held in paragraph 35 (page 201 of the report),
the true test of bias is:
"35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere
apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias
and it is on this score that the surrounding
circumstances must and ought to be collated and
necessary conclusion drawn therefrom -- in the event
however the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that
there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative
action cannot be sustained:"
20. This Court opines that the judgments relied upon by
the counsel to the respondent do not apply to the facts of
the present case and a bare perusal of all the
consequential orders clearly indicate non application of
mind by the Officers concerned as no reasons are
WP_13257_2020
19 SN,J
assigned in rejecting the petitioner's Appeal, Review and
Revision petitions. Except extracting the contents of the
show cause notice, and the grounds raised by the
Petitioner, there is neither any discussion nor any finding
or conclusion arrived at nor any reasons assigned in
rejecting the petitioner's Appeal, Review and Revision
petitions. This Court also opines that the 2nd respondent
who acted as a punishing authority also participated in
the Appeal/Revision/ Review process and he is the
signatory to the same. A bare perusal of the enquiry
report dated 29.07.2011 clearly indicates that none of
the charges alleged against the petitioner had been
substantiated. In the absence of any evidence to prove
the charges leveled against the petitioner, issuance of
show cause notice dated 20.06.2014 after nearly more
than two and half years, pre-determining the issue by
indicating the proposed punishment in the said show
cause notice even before receiving any explanation from
the petitioner to the said show cause notice dated
20.06.2014 is clearly in violation of the principle that
"Justice must not only be done, but it must eminently
appear to be done as well".
WP_13257_2020
20 SN,J
21. This Court is of firm opinion that in the instant case
the alleged guilt of the petitioner has been pre-judged at
the stage of show cause notice itself.
22. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court
referred to and extracted above and also the law laid
down in the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioner and further taking into consideration the fact
that the respondent authority dealt with the subject issue
as a routine administrative matter, whereas it is a quasi
judicial matter involving service career of the petitioner
and the competent authority was required to pass
speaking orders by giving reasons for imposing the
penalty after considering the inquiry report,
representation of the petitioner and other material
concerning disciplinary proceedings on record, the
respondent authority failed to do so and pre-judged the
issue at the stage of issuance of show cause notice itself.
This Court opines that all the other impugned orders in
the present writ petition are not speaking orders giving
reasons. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed as
prayed for and the impugned order issued by the 2nd
respondent Memo. No.CGM(HRD)/GM(Adm)/AS/DC.I/PO
(DC. I)/341-C1/06, dated 19.07.2014, and the
WP_13257_2020
21 SN,J
consequential orders vide Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR,
L & Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)341-C1/06, dated
10.10.2014, Memo dated 20.08.2015 and Memo. No. CGM
(HRD)/GM (Per)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06, dated
06.05.2020 are set aside as being unreasoned, routine
and without application of mind and the respondents are
further directed to consider the case of the petitioner to
be notionally promoted as Divisional Engineer with effect
from the date of promotion of the 5th Respondent with all
consequential benefits including promotion to the post of
Superintendent Engineer since it is stated in the counter
affidavit that the petitioner's name will be examined for
promotion to the cadre of Superintending Engineer
whenever the petitioner's name comes up in seniority,
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
the copy of the order and pass appropriate orders in
accordance to law duly communicating the said decision
to the Petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
25.11.2022
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o
kvrm
