Telangana High Court
P.Sudhakar Rao vs The Board Of Directors on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
1
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P. No. 3230 of 2019
Between:
P.Sudhakar Rao
... Petitioner
And
The Board of Directors, rep.by its Chairman and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 30.10.2023
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
2
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 3230 of 2019
% 30.10.2023
Between:
# P.Sudhakar Rao
..... Petitioner
And
$ The Board of Directors, rep.by its Chairman and others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr Krishna Murthy Devarakonda
^ counsel for Respondents : Mrs Pasham Sujatha
? Cases Referred:
1. (2018) 14 SCC 92
2. (2018) 14 SCC 98
3. (2007) 6 SCC 694]
4. (2020) 18 SCC 71
3
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P. No. 3230 of 2019
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Krishna Murthy Devarakonda, the
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner,
the Mrs Pasham Sujatha, Learned standing counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari
calling for the records related and connected with the
rejection orders vide Proceedings No.
TSSDC/Admn./Disc.case/2018-19 dated 30.04.2018 passed
by the 1st Respondent in Appeal confirming the Disciplinary
Proceedings of Major Penalty of dismissal from service
imposed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.
TSSDC/Admn./2015-16, dated 11.03.2016 by declaring as
illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural Justice
besides being in violation of enquiry procedure and quash the
same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the
balance of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension
and withheld amounts of the service benefits which were
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
withheld without notice and other benefits entitled by the
petitioner along with legal interest.
3. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments
made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the
petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition in
brief, are as follows:
a) The petitioner has joined in the A.P. State Seeds
Development Corporation Limited (currently known as
Telangana State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.) on
03/01/1986 as Seed Officer and has worked about 26 years
until the time of issuing the charge memo dated 27.08.2012,
and suspending the petitioner from the services. The
petitioner as Seed Officer has worked as in-charge of the
District unit as District Manager (Seeds) of the various district
units.
While the petitioner was working as the District Manager
(Seeds) i.e., In-charge of Khammam unit from 10.08.2005 to
25.08.2011, due to mis-management of the receipts of
income of the 2ndrespondent corporation, which was
intentionally done by a Junior Assistant Accountant (Cashier)
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
which could not be either found out or identified even by the
internal audit officials of the 2ndRespondent, who thoroughly
check the accounts, and the petitioner himself being an
expert in accounts was unable to detect the malice intention
of the said cashier and it was brought to light by a District
Cooperative Marketing Society. Khammam which is a dealer
to the Corporation at Khammam, after the petitioner got
transferred to Kurnool i.e., about after an year, the Head
Office has deputed a Special team in August 2012 to look into
the accounts and they have submitted a Note to 2nd
Respondent, where it was found out that the said cashier has
gone to the extent of collecting money from the respective
parties raising original cash receipts for the actual sum
received and has managed to duplicate receipt available to
the office with half of the actual amount collected and by
virtue of such intentional action of the said cashier, the 2nd
Respondent corporation was accounted for the said half
amount against actual full amount collected by the said
cashier and such intentional action could not be even
identified by the internal audit officers since the duplicate
office copy of the cash receipt is showing half the amount
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
alleged to be collected and which is the basis for finalizing the
accounts of the Unit.
b) Since the cash book handled by the cashier has to be
counter-signed by the petitioner as supervisory, while cross
checking, the petitioner could not find out the intentional
doings and being a District Manager (Seeds) of the unit, one
of the daily functions of the petitioner were: (v) collection of
sale proceeds, where the Mandal Agricultural Officers are
involved in distribution.Moreover, even after the 2nd
Respondent issued a charge memo for the period from
10.08.2005 to 25.08.2011 dated 27.08.2012 when the
petitioner was transferred about one year ago and is currently
working at Kurnool, obliging the same, the petitioner has
submitted a written statement of defence on 10.12.2012
seeking extension of time from time to time as the petitioner
was not in the Khammam unit. The 2nd respondent after
receipt of the petitioner's written statement of defence issued
revised charge memo dated 01.04.2013 keeping the
petitioner under suspension for the first time.
c) After perusing the records at Khammam Unit with the
permission of 2nd Respondent, the petitioner submitted a
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
representation dated 10/07/2013 by providing some of the
documents which the petitioner found in the table of the
cashier in the presence of the District Manager of the unit, but
they have not provided the same till date which are crucial in
nature.
d) Subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed by the
2nd Respondent to conduct a common enquiry where the
cashier was also given charge memo. The 2nd respondent has
originally lodged a complaint through District Manager,
Khammam against the cashier which was registered as Crime
No. 123 of 2012, thereafter under wrong impression the 2nd
Respondent has addressed a letter to the CI of Police, to
include the petitioner's name as well in the said crime.
e) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has made a
representation dated 04.10.2013 wherein, the 2nd Respondent
directed the District Manager (Seeds) Khammam to withdraw
the said letter dated 15.04.2013 for inclusion of the
petitioner's name in the said FIR No.123 of 2012.
Subsequently, the petitioner attended before the Police and
upon proper investigation, the petitioner's name was deleted
as the accused.
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
f) Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent reinstated the petitioner
into service vide proceedings dated 10.10.2013 and during
the petitioner's visit to Khammam Unit, he found certain
documents which are needed to disprove the allegations of
the charge made against him. Further, the petitioner has
requested Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide certain crucial
documents vide letter dated 10.12.2013 and the 3rd
Respondent has addressed a letter to the District Manager (S)
Khammam and the 2nd respondent permitted to issue copies
of (i) Details of remittances made by AO's pertaining to dues
of Rs.20,55,047-45 ps. and (ii) Seed indent/seed supplies
register pertaining to the year 2007-08 season.
g) Subsequently, the District Manager (S) Khammam
addressed a letter dated 10.01.2014 to the said Manager
(QC) and 3rd Respondent herein, stating that the said
information is not traceable. Thereafter, the enquiry was
conducted in Khammam District at Khammam Unit Office on
10.12.2013 and the petitioner requested the 3rd Respondent
herein to examine one of the Mandal Agriculture Officer
(MAO), Vemsur Mandal and one of the progressive seed
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
grower namely, K.Seshi Reddy so as to find out the truth on
the false allegations made against him.
h) In spite of non-examination of the said crucial witnesses
by the enquiry officer, the enquiry was vitiated to provide the
petitioner defence to disprove the allegations made in the
charge memo. Furthermore, the 2nd Respondent herein
having no jurisdiction was pleased to pass disciplinary
proceedings dated 11.03.2016 imposing major penalty of
dismissal from the services of the corporation on 31.01.2015.
After the petitioner's actual retirement took place on
31/01/2014, the 2nd Respondent ordered and permitted the
petitioner to get relieved on 31.01.2014, by then the
petitioner was District Manager (S) (since promoted to Asst.
Manager) and even if the said major penalty of punishment
was proposed to be imposed, the 2nd Respondent has no
power since the District Manager(S) post is under the control
of 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said actions of the 2nd
respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. The averments in the Counter Affidavit filed by the
Respondents, in brief, are as under:
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
a) The petitioner was imposed major penalty of dismissal
from service vide proceedings No. TSSDC/Admn/2015-16
dated 11.03.2016 by the 2nd Respondent, against which the
petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st Respondent and after
thorough examination of available material on record and
after personal hearing of the petitioner, appeal was rejected
and dismissal of service was confirmed by the 1st Respondent.
b) While the petitioner was working as District Manager in-
charge in Khammam District, serious irregularities took place
in the sales accounts in respect of DCMS, PACS, Agricultural
Officers & Joint Director of Agriculture. The Petitioner was
prima facie found responsible for irregularities and disciplinary
action was initiated against the petitioner keeping him under
suspension and 2nd Respondent issued proceedings
No.SSDC/Admn./2012-2013 /9813 on 03.10.2012, stating
that petitioner will continue to be under suspension.
c) Furthermore, while the petitioner was working in
Kurnool, during 2012 the successor of Khammam district
manager has complained that, the customer accounts of unit
are not tallying with the actual amount payable by the parties
and he requested the Head Office to depute officer for sales
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
and accounts reconciliation. After verification of the records, a
report was submitted on 22.08.2015, stating that there were
certain financial irregularities and manipulations in the sales
accounts. On 27.08.2012 Charge Memo was issued to the
petitioner and the respondents constituted a special audit
team for conducting Audit & verification of the accounts and
the special audit team submitted their report on 18.02.2013.
d) Moreover, the petitioner is accountable for the shortage
physical cash and dues extended to the various dealers of the
unit and W.P No. 578 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner
challenging the suspension which was also dismissed. On
16.08.2013 the petitioner has given an undertaking letter to
recover the amount from his retirement benefits with regard
to receipt of Rs.3,98;000/- in cash from Mandal Agricultural
Officer, Vemsoor, Khammam District giving a rough receipt
dated 02.06.2008 and the said amount was handed over to
the petitioner by V.Radha Krishna, who has not accounted for
as per the charge.
e) Furthermore, the petitioner has falsely alleged that he
did not get a chance to examine his documents and his
witnesses to disprove his allegations. However, the petitioner
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
neither provided the documents desired by him to disprove
the allegations made against him nor examined any crucial
witnesses. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from his
service and received all retirement benefits except gratuity
and leave encashment amount. The petitioner also filed an
appeal before the 1st Respondent against the proceedings No.
TSSDC/Admn/2015-16 issued by the 2ndrespondent and the
same was rejected on grounds of devoid of merits.
f) Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable
to be dismissed.
5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents.
The enquiry officer has failed to conduct fair enquiry as
per the material placed by the petitioner. It is also pertinent to
mention here that the Respondent has stated in the counter
affidavit that the petitioner was paid retirement benefits
except gratuity, which was true, but failed to pay any of the
retirement benefits like EPF, leave encashment, GSLI and
gratuity, as well had been withheld all these years without any
prior notice except that the petitioner had been permitted to
retire from the service.
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
PERUSED THE RECORD :
6) Office Order dated 27.01.2014 vide
No.SSDC/Admn/ Retirement/013/2013-14, of the
General Manager (Admn) I/c. reads as under :
"Sub: SSDC - Estt. - Relieving of to be retired employee
- Orders - Issued.
-0o0-
Sri P.Suldhakar Rao, Asst. Manager, APSSDC Ltd.,
Nirmal is retiring from the services of the Corporation
on 31.01.2014 on attaining superannuation age of '58'
years.
Therefore, the District Manager (Seeds), APSSDC
Ltd., Nirmal is requested to relieve Sri P.Sudhakar Rao,
Asst. Manager from his duties on 31.01.2014 A.N. duly
recovering dues, if any.
(Issued under orders of the V.C. & M.D.,APSSDC Ltd.,
Hyderabad)"
7. The observations and the order in Proceedings
No.TSSDC/Admn/2015-16, dated 11.03.2016 of the
Disciplinary Authority and Managing Director of the
TSSDC Ltd., Hyderabad, observed as under:
"OBSERVATIONS:
After careful examination of the case and material on
record, it is observed that after completion of the
meeting held in the o/o JDA, Khammam, the Charged
Officer received an amount of Rs.3,98,000/- in cash
from Mandal Agricultural Officer, towards the cost of
non-subsidy amount of Green Manure seed supplied
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
during the year 2008. He issued a hand written receipt
dated 02.06.2008 to the MAO, as a token of
receipt/acknowledgement for the cash received. But, he
has not handed over the cash to the Jr. Asst. and not
accounted for the amount. The issue has not come to
light till the report of Officers deputed from Head Office,
for sales accounts reconciliation on 22.08.2012. The
contention of the Charged Officer that he handed over
the cash on the same day to the Jr. Asst., without
producing any evidence, is not agreable. Being
Supervisory Officer, he has to sign the unit Cash Book
regularly, after completion of cash and bank
transactions. If the cash was actually handed over to
the Jr.Asst., before signing the cash book, he would
have asked why he had not made entry in the cash
book and not deposited in the corporation bank account.
The Charged Officer has deliberately suppressed the fact
of receipt of cash of Rs.3,98,000/- from MAO, Vemsoor.
This clearly proves his Dis-honesty and Mis-
appropriation of Office Funds.
The Charged Officer allowed fictitious entries and
wrong postings in the Customer Accounts, to show
lesser amounts than the actual amount payable by
A.O's. He allowed supplies to DCMS, Khammam, though
there was huge outstanding amount due from them.
After passing adjustment entries by the Special Audit
Team to set right the wrong postings, a net difference of
Rs. 20,55,047.45 was found in DCMS account. Inspite of
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
repeated instructions during review meetings held at
Head Office on 25.03.2010; 01.11.2010 & 10.02.2011,
he exhibited negligence and not made any efforts to
recover dues, violating the instructions of Head Office.
He colluded with Jr.Asst., and diverted the Corporation
funds for their personal/illegal gains. Even on the
complaint of Sri P. Yugandhar, daily wage Assistant on
non-raising of cash receipt for the amount of
Rs.1,10,000/-remitted by him, the Charged Officer
being Head of the Unit, failed to take action against the
Jr.Asst., working under his control. The deposition dt:
01.02.2013 of Sri P. Yugandhar, daily wage assistant,
Khammam proves the collusion of Charged Officer with
the Junior Assistant and his dishonesty in discharging
official duties.
I, therefore agree with the findings of Inquiry
Officer and have come to the conclusion that the
Charged Officer Sri P. Sudhakar Rao, A.M(retd.) has
committed grave financial irregularities with malafide
intention to defraud the Corporation, while working as
D.M(S), Khammam, during the period from 04.06.2007
to 24.08.2011.
ORDER:
Since, the Corporation was established for
the benefit of farmers in obtaining quality seeds
at lesser price well before commencement of
respective seasons; such fraudulent acts on the
part of employees deceiving the Organization
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
established for Social cause are liable for
stringent punishment.
Keeping in view of his proved misconducts of
mis-appropriation, fraud and dishonesty in
connection with the Corporation business under
Rule 4(x), negligence in duties under Rule 4(ii)
and subversive of discipline of the Corporation
under Rule 4 (xxiv) of Discipline & Appeal Rules,
Sri P.Sudhakar Rao, Asst. Manager(retd.) is
deemed to have been dismissed from the Services
of the Corporation on 31.01.2015 A.N. and
therefore his terminal benefits are hereby
withheld.
8. Proceedings dated 30.04.2018 of the 2nd
respondent reads as under:
"In the reference 1st cited, after complying the
prescribed procedure, Sri P.Sudhakar Rao, A.M. &
D.M(S) (Retd.), TSSDC Ltd., Khammam was dismissed
from the services, for his proved negligence in duties
under Rule 4(ii), mis-conducts of mis-appropriation,
fraud and dishonesty in connection with the Corporation
business under Rule 4(x), and subversive of discipline of
the Corporation under Rule 4(xxiv) of Discipline &
Appeal Rules for employees of the Corporation.
In the reference 2nd cited, Sri P.Sudhakar Rao, A.M. &
D.M(S) (Retd.) has preferred an 'Appeal' before the
Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors against the
penalty imposed on him.
The Appeal of the dismissed employee was placed
before the 6th Board Meeting held on 29.09.2016 for
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
taking decision on the penalty imposed against him. The
Appellate Authority in its above said meeting constituted
a Committee comprising of Joint Secretary(Agril.), Dy
Secretary(Fin.), Govt. of Telangana and the Share
holder Seed Grower Director of the Corporation to
examine the appeal and submit its recommendations to
the Chairman, for decision. Accordingly, the meeting
of the Appeals Sub-Committee was convened at 4.00
p.m. on 05.12.2016 and the Appellant was called for
hearing. After hearing the Appellant, the Sub-
Committee has recommended as follows:
The Appellant Sri P.Sudhakar Rao has collected an
amount of Rs.3,98,000/- in cash from MAO, Vemsooor
towards the cost of Green manure seed supplied during
the year 2008. But, there is no official Cash Receipt or
acknowledgement, it can be construed that he has not
remitted the collected amount to the Office.
The Committee further opined that he exhibited
negligence in supervising the activities of sub-ordinate
staff working under his control. If he is vigilant, such
manipulations in the records would have avoided, much
earlier and he deceived the organisation and
misappropriated the Office cash in lakhs of rupees, for
his personal purpose?
Further, Govt. in its Memo No.3446/A&C/Vig/A1/2016,
Dt:03.04.2018 directed the Appellate Authority to reject
the appeal filed by the Appellant.
ORDER:
"After thorough examination of the Appeal,
personal hearing of the Appellant, considering the
gravity of the entire case, verification of the
available material on record, Sub-Committee
recommendations and Govt. orders, it is proved
that Sri P.Sudhakar Rao, A.M & D.M(Retd.) has
committed certain financial irregularities and he
exhibited negligence in supervising the activities
of sub-ordinate staff besides mis-use/mis-
appropriation of Office Cash for his personal use.
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
There is no merit in the Appeal filed by Sri
P.Sudhakar Rao against the orders of dismissal
from service".
Therefore, the Appeal preferred by Sri P.Sudhakar Rao,
A.M.(Retd.) is rejected on grounds of devoid merits and
his proved misconducts of mis- appropriation, fraud and
dishonesty in connection with the Corporation business,
the major penalty imposed from dismissal of service
vide Proceedings dated 11.03.2016 is hereby confirmed.
9. Counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, in
particular, Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, read as under:
"8. In reply to para No.7 of the affidavit, the
respondent authority lodged a report before III Town
Police station, Khammam, against Junior Assistant and
the petitioner offences Under Section 406,409, R/W 420
IPC., and it was registered as Crime no. 123 of 2012.
On 27-8-2012 issued charge memo to the petitioner. On
16-8-2013 the petitioner given an undertaking letter to
recover the amount from his retirement benefits,
"undertaking that with regard to receipt of
Rs.3,98,000/- in cash from Mandal Agricultural Officer,
Vemsoor, Khammam District giving a rough receipt dt:
2-6-2008, the said amount was handed over by me to
V.Radha Krishna, who has not accounted for as per the
charge, I submit that lam giving undertaking to recover
the said amount from my retirement benefits." The
subject to the result and outcome of the enquiry
proceedings, requested for revocation of his suspension
and reinstate into his duties. The petitioner further
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
requested to delete his name from above said crime.
The respondents considering his request, issued vide
proceedings dated 10-10-2013, stating that the
petitioner re-instated into his duties pending further
enquiry into the charges.
9. In reply to para No.8 of the affidavit, the 2nd
respondent consider petitioner's request and re-instated
the petitioner after receiving his undertaking letter. The
2nd Respondent appointed a enquiry officer to conduct
an enquiry against the petitioner, except this remaining
contents in this paragraph is baseless allegations.
10. In reply to para No.9 of the affidavit, the enquiry
officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his report,
copy served to the petitioner. The petitioner falsely
alleging that he didn't get a chance to examine his
documents and his witnesses to disprove his allegations.
But petitioner neither provided the documents desired
by him to disprove the allegations made against him nor
examined any crucial witnesses. The 2nd respondent is
the disciplinary and appointing authority according to
that the 2nd respondent have an authority to impose
major penalty. The petitioner retired from his service
and received all retirement benefits except gratuity and
leave encashment amount.
11. In reply to para No. 10 of the affidavit, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent
against the proceedings No.TSSDC/Admn/2015-16
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
issued by the 2nd respondent, it was referred to the
subcommittee. The subcommittee rejected the appeal
on grounds of devoid of merits and same was
confirmed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :
DISCUSSION :
10. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the
Petitioner joined in Telangana State Seeds
Development Corporation Ltd., on 03.01.1986 as Seed
Officer and worked sincerely all through. A charge
memo dated 27.08.2012 was issued to the Petitioner
suspending the Petitioner from service. Vide the said
charge Memo dt. 27.08.2012, seven (7) specific
allegations were levelled against the writ petitioner and
the charge Memo dated 27.08.2012 in its conclusion
observed as under :
"As seen from the above, the Charged Officer
knowingly concealed dues position to Head Office for his
personal gain. He violated Head Office instructions and
issued seed on credit to DCMS though sizeable amount
was due from them. His notice dt. 27.05.2011 to DCMS
for settlement of amount of Rs.107.50 lakh against the
total out standing amount of Rs.417.83 lakh as on
31.03.2011 from the said party gives scope for
suspicion on his involvement in the irregularities. He
colluded with the Junior Assistant in manipulation of
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
records with a view to defraud the Corporation. His
failure to supervise the activities of his subordinates
resulted in damage to the reputation of the Corporation
before JDA and DCMS, Khammam, but also caused
differences in sales accounts of the parties, which may
likely cause loss to the Corporation. Therefore, he is
responsible for the acts of his subordinate and liable for
the differences occurred during his tenure as D.M.
(Seeds), Khammam.
Thus, he committed acts of misconduct of
negligence of duties under Rule 4(ii) and Dishonesty in
connection with the Company's Business under Rule
4(x) of Disciplinary & Appeal Rules and failed to
maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and
conduct unbecoming of Corporation employee in
violation of Rule (3) of Conduct Rules for the employees
of APSSDC, 1976.
The employee has, therefore, rendered himself
liable for regular departmental action for major penalty".
11. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner
was again issued a revised charge memo dt. 01.04.2013 with
6 specific charges and in conclusion it is again observed that
the Petitioner committed acts of misconduct of negligence of
duties and therefore rendered himself liable for regular
departmental action for major penalty. Enquiry was conducted
in Khammam District at Khammam Unit Office on 10.12.2013
and certain crucial witnesses were not examined by the
Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was vitiated and proceedings
dated 11.03.2016 imposing major penalty of dismissal from
services of the Corporation on 30.01.2015 A.N. was imposed
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
against the Petitioner and the terminal benefits also had been
withheld vide the said impugned order dated 11.03.2016 vide
No.TSSDC/Admn/2015-16 of the Disciplinary Authority &
Managing Director. It is further the case of the Petitioner that
the Petitioner preferred Appeal and the Disciplinary Authority
& Managing Director rejected the Appeal vide Proceedings
dated 30.04.2018 vide No.TSSDC/Admn/Disc.Case/2018-19,
confirming the major penalty imposed upon the Petitioner
dated 11.03.2016 holding that there is no merit in the Appeal
filed by the Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner mainly
submits that the pleas raised by the Petitioner in the
explanation furnished by the Petitioner to the revised charged
memo dated 01.04.2013 had not been considered by the
Disciplinary Authority and further the request of the Petitioner
for providing certain documents for submission of additional
written statement of defence was not considered by the
Respondents and the orders impugned had been passed
hastily and mechanically in violation of principles of natural
justice and further that the 2nd Respondent had no jurisdiction
to the pass the order impugned dated 30.04.2018, since as
per the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules Schedule for the post of
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
Seed Officer, the Disciplinary Authority to impose major
penalties is the Managing Director and the Appellate Authority
is the Board, therefore the writ petition has to be allowed as
prayed for.
12. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents and
it is contended that the 2nd Respondent is the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appointing Authority and therefore the 2nd
Respondent has an Authority to impose major penalty and
that the Petitioner retired from his service and he received all
retirement benefits except gratuity and leave encashment
amount and further the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner had
been rejected on grounds of devoid of merits and therefore
the writ petition needs to be dismissed.
CONCLUSION :
13. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge memo
dated 27.08.2012 and revised charge memo dated
01.04.2013 issued against the Petitioner clearly
indicates that the Vice Chairman and Managing Director
of the Respondent Corporation proceeded against the
Petitioner arriving at a predetermined conclusion that
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
the Petitioner rendered himself liable for regular
departmental action for major penalty and further held
that the Petitioner committed acts of misconduct of
negligence of duties and indulged in misappropriation,
fraud and dishonesty and failed to maintain absolute
integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of
Corporation employee. This Court opines that at the
stage of issuance of charge memo itself there cannot be
any unilateral conclusion arrived at against the
Petitioner holding the Petitioner as guilty without even
conducting a proper enquiry as per Rules in force and
as per due procedure.
14. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dated
27.01.2014 of the General Manager (Admn) I/c., vide
No.SSDC/Admn/ Retirement/013/2013-14, (referred
to and extracted above) issued to the Petitioner clearly
indicates that the Petitioner retired from the services of
the Corporation as Assistant Manager, APSSDC Ltd.,
Nirmal on 31.01.2014 on attaining superannuation age
of 58 years and curiously the order impugned dated
11.03.2016 issued by the Disciplinary Authority &
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
Managing Director of the Respondent Corporation
indicates that the Petitioner is deemed to have been
dismissed from the services of the Corporation on
31.01.2015 A.N. withholding the terminal benefits of
the Petitioner. This Court opines that the Petitioner
having retired from the services of the Respondent
Corporation on attaining superannuation age of 58
years on 31.01.2014 and not being on the rolls of the
Corporation since 01.02.2014 cannot be dismissed from
service w.e.f., 31.01.2015 A.N. as observed by the
Disciplinary Authority & Managing Director in the order
impugned dated 11.03.2016.
15. A bare perusal of the order of the Appellate
Authority dated 30.04.2018 (referred to and extracted
above)confirming the major penalty of dismissal of
service imposed upon the Petitioner vide Proceedings
dated 11.03.2016 indicates a specific reference to the
Government Memo No.3446/A&C/Vig/A1/2016, dated
30.04.2018 directing the Appellate Authority to reject
the Appeal filed by the Appellant/the Petitioner herein.
This Court opines that the Appellate Authority did not
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
apply its mind independently and simply followed the
directions issued by the Government mechanically since
it is a cryptic order passed without assigning any
reasons and simply confirmed the proceedings dated
11.03.2016 issued against the Petitioner. The
Respondents failed to explain in the Counter Affidavit
the relevant applicable rules governing the service
conditions of the Petitioner which enabled the
Respondent Authority to impose punishment of
dismissal from service after Petitioner's
superannuation.
16. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in
(2018) 14 SCC 92 in UCO Bank Vs. Rajendra Shankar
Shukla, in particular, at para 18 observed as under :
"18 : Under the circumstances, we have no
hesitation in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Bank
also on the ground that the punishment of dismissal
could not have been imposed on Shukla after his
superannuation".
17. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in
(2018)14 SCC 98 in UCO Bank & Others Vs. Prabhakar
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
Sadashiv Karvade, in particular, at para 11 observed as
under :
"11 : This view is amply supported by other
judicial precedents. In High Court of Punjab &
Haryana v. Amrik Singh, this Court referred to an
earlier Judgment in D.V. Kapoor v. Union of
India", Rule 2.2 of the Pension Rules applicable to
the employees of the High Court and observed:
(Amrik Singh case, SCC p. 324, para 5)
"5. It is seen that the learned Chief Justice
of the High Court, on the administrative side,
while passing the order of dismissal agreed with
the enquiry officer's finding that the respondent
committed embezzlement and mentioned that the
order of dismissal would come into immediate
effect from the date of the order. In other words,
he appears to have intended to say that the order
of dismissal will be operative from the date of the
order of the dismissal. But it would appear that
the Chief Justice was not apprised that the
delinquent had already been retired from service
on completion of two years' period of extended
service of re-employment with effect from 31-8-
1982. Therefore, the order of giving effect to
the order of dismissal from the date of its
order was of no consequence and became
superfluous as he was no longer in service as
on that date."
18. In the Division Bench judgment of the Apex Court
dated 18.05.2007 in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
reported in (2007) 6 SCC 694, in particular, at paras 22
and 23, it is observed as under:
"22. The respondent, therefore, having been
allowed to superannuate, only a proceeding, inter
alia, for withholding of his pension under the
Pension Regulations could have been initiated
against the respondent. Discipline and Appeal
Regulations were, thus not attracted.
Consequently the charge-sheet, the enquiry report
and the orders of punishment passed by the
disciplinary authority and the appellate authority
must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
23. An order of dismissal or removal from
service can be passed only when an employee is in
service. If a person is not in employment, the
question of terminating his services ordinarily
would not arise unless there exists a specific rule
in that behalf. As Regulation 20 is not applicable
in the case of the respondent, we have no other
option but to hold that the entire proceeding
initiated against the respondent became vitiated
in law."
19. This Court opines that the master and servant
relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent
Corporation had come to an end for all practical
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
purposes on 31.01.2014 on Petitioner attaining
superannuation age of 58 years, and the Departmental
enquiry initiated against the Petitioner before
Petitioner's retirement could be continued for a limited
purpose to decide on the point, whether or not the
Petitioner is entitled for full pensionary benefits and
gratuity. This Court is of the firm opinion that the
impugned order dated 11.03.2016 of the Disciplinary
Authority & Managing Director observing that the
Petitioner is deemed to have been dismissed from the
services of the Corporation on 31.01.2015 A.N. is of no
consequence since the Petitioner was no longer in
service as on that date.
20. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court reported in (2020) 18 SCC 71 in Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., Vs.
Rabindranath Choubey and in particular para 44, but
this Court opines that the said judgment does not apply
to the facts of the present case for the following
reasons :
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
i. The charge memo dated 27.08.2012 and the
revised charge memo dated 01.04.2013
proceeded against the Petitioner pre-judging
and predetermining the subject issue having
arrived at a unilateral conclusion even before
conduct of enquiry as per the due procedure
and rules in force, in conformity with principles
of natural justice against the Petitioner holding
the Petitioner as having committed acts of
misconduct of negligence of duties,
misappropriation, fraud and dishonesty.
ii. The counter affidavit is silent and does not
trace its power to relevant rules or regulations
which empower the Respondent Authority to
pass an order of dismissal of service upon
Petitioner's superannuation from service.
iii. The Appellate Authority in its order dated
30.04.2018 clearly observed that the
Government in its Memo dated 03.04.2018
directed the Appellate Authority to reject the
Appeal filed by the Appellant which clearly
evidences the fact that the Appellate Authority
did not apply its mind independently in passing
the order impugned dated 30.04.2018.
iv. The 2nd Respondent had no jurisdiction to the
pass the order impugned dated 30.04.2018,
since a bare perusal of the schedule pertaining
to Disciplinary and Appeal Rules [see Rule 2(h)
WP_3230_2019
SN,J
5 (ii) and (16)] clearly indicates that for the
post of Seed Officer, the Disciplinary Authority
to impose major penalties is the Managing
Director and the Appellate Authority is the
Board.
21. Taking into consideration the afore said facts and
circumstances of the case and duly taking into
consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the (1) judgment dated 18.05.2007 in UCO Bank v
Rajinder Lal capoor reported in (2007) 6 SCC 694 (2)
The judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2018) 14
SCC 92 in UCO Bank v Rajender Shankar Shukla and (3)
the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2018) 14
SCC 98 in UCO Bank and others v Prabhakar Sadashiv
Karvade (referred to and extracted above), this Court
opines that the writ petitioner is entitled for the relief
as prayed for in the present writ petition and the same
is allowed as prayed for. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 30.10.2023
Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.
b/o kvrm
