Telangana High Court

S.Hanumantha Goud vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its ... on 8 September, 2023

Bench: J Sreenivas Rao

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
                        W.P.No.44461 OF 2016
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

"...Issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action in rejecting petitioners appeal dated 25.06.2014 by the first respondent vide Memo No.768/For.III/A2/2014 dated 06.10.2015 communicated to the petitioner vide Rc.No.3061/2002/S5 dated 11.01.2016 through Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad i.e., fourth respondent as arbitrary, illegal and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to accord all financial and promotional benefits for which the petitioner is eligible with retrospective effect..."

2. Heard Sri G. Raman Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner joined as Forest Section officer on 12.05.1986 in

Adilabad Division and he was promoted as Deputy Range Officer

and retired on 31.08.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation.

He further submits that during his service, respondent No.4 issued

Articles of charge vide proceedings RC.No.3061/2002-S5 dated

31.07.2002 proposing to hold an enquiry against him by invoking

the provisions of Rule 20 of AP CCA Rules, 1991('Rules' for brevity)

for negligence in construction of Check Dam at Kothur VSS in

Tamsi Forest Section with following charges.

1. Gross neglect of duty in defective construction of Check dam at Kothur VSS resulting in washing out the Check dam II.

2. Supression of Facts.

3.1 Petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.11.2002

denying the charges levelled against him. Being not satisfied with

the same, Government has appointed the Commissioner of

Inquiries, GAD for conducting detailed enquiry. The enquiry

officer after conducting detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report

vide letter No.28(A)/C.O.I-M/BPV/2002 dated 29.05.2003 with a

finding that the charge Nos.1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner

are not proved. Respondent No.2 disagreeing with the report

submitted by the Commissioner of Inquiries issued notice vide

Prl.CCF Rc.No.30246/2002.K2, dated 28.05.2005 to the petitioner

without conducting any enquiry much less independent enquiry

and also without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and

passed order vide proceedings No.30246/02/K2 dated 03.04.2006

awarding punishment of "Reduction in pay permanently by

three(3) stages". Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.4 had

issued proceedings vide Rc.No.2088/2007/S2 dated 31.05.2007

reducing the petitioner's pay.

3.2 Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner filed

appeal before respondent No.1 on 01.08.2006. The appellate

authority without examining the grounds raised in the appeal and

without giving any opportunity to the petitioner rejected the appeal

and issued Memo No.7594/For-IV/A2/2006-3 dated 24.11.2008

without giving any reasons. Thereafter, the petitioner filed

Memorial petition on 16.10.2009 to respondent No.1 and the said

petition was also rejected on 15.07.2010. Thereafter, the

petitioner filed representation to the Chief Minster on 25.06.2014

and the said application was rejected by respondent No.1 through

Memo No.768/For.III/A2/2014 dated 06.10.2015.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that the disciplinary authority imposed major punishment of

withholding of three increments with cumulative effect though he

did not commit any misappropriation, misconduct while

discharging his duties. Enquiry officer after conducting enquiry,

submitted detailed report stating that the charges levelled against

the petitioner are not proved. In the absence of any other material

evidence on record, the disciplinary authority imposed the major

punishment, especially without giving opportunity much less

reasonable opportunity to petitioner and the same is clear violation

of principles of natural justice and contrary to law. He further

contended that in the enquiry report, the Commissioner of

Inquiries specifically stated that the estimate report submitted by

the Watershed Team Member and sanctioned by respondent No.4

drastically reducing the quantum of amount and measurement

leading to the wash out of the check dam in the month of August,

2001, as there were heavy rains and the same was established

after due verification of the newspaper reports and rainfall data

and the petitioner has not committed any illegality or irregularity

and there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner for washing

out of check dam and he also not suppressed any facts. He

further submits that the appellate authority without giving any

notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without

verifying the records, simply rejected the appeal and the same is

contrary to law.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader

contended that gross neglect of duty in construction of check dam

resulted in washing out of the Checkdam-II and Government

sustained financial losses. The respondent authorities initiated

the disciplinary proceedings after following the due procedure

under law. She further submits that the enquiry officer without

properly conducting the enquiry, submitted the enquiry report

stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not

proved and the disciplinary authority is having power to accept or

reject the enquiry report findings. The disciplinary authority

disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry report, after due

verification of the entire records, rightly issued the show cause

notice on 28.05.2005 to the petitioner directing him to submit his

defence statement, if any. In spite of the same, the petitioner

failed to submit any explanation/defence statement. Respondent

No.2 after thorough verification of the records rightly awarded the

punishment of reduction in pay permanently by three (3) stages

vide proceedings dated 03.04.2006 by giving cogent reasons.

4.1 Questioning the above said order, petitioner filed appeal

and the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 24.11.2008 and

the petitioner without questioning the said order, after lapse of two

years, filed Memorial petition before respondent No.1 and the said

petition was also rejected on 15.07.2010. After lapse of more than

four years, the petitioner submitted another representation on

25.06.2014 to the Chief Minister and the same was forwarded to

the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 rejected the said petition

on 06.10.2015. She further contended that the order dated

03.04.2006 passed by respondent No.2 has become final and the

same was confirmed by the appellate authority on 24.11.2008.

The petitioner without approaching the competent Court, filed the

representation dated 25.06.2014, though the Government is not

having any power to review or modify the order dated 24.11.2008.

The petitioner filed petitions one after the other and the same are

not maintainable and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as the

petitioner filed this writ petition after lapse of more than 8 years.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by

respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on

record, it clearly reveals that respondent No.4 initiated the

proceedings dated 31.07.2002 against the petitioner invoking the

provisions of Rule 20 of Rules and issued articles of charge as

mentioned supra. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted

explanation on 11.11.2002 and being not satisfied with the same

the Government has appointed Commissioner of Inquiries, GAD for

conducting detailed enquiry into the allegations committed by the

petitioner and it further appears from the records that during the

course of enquiry the enquiry officer has given all opportunities to

the petitioner as well as respondent. The enquiry officer after

conducting detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report on

29.05.2003 with a finding that the charges levelled against the

petitioner are not proved.

6. Enquiry officer in the enquiry report, specifically held that

the prosecution relied on the photographs taken by FRO on

05.08.2001, to conclude that the washing away of the check dam

was due to defective construction and not using the cement with

materials in correct proportions, but there is no substantive

evidence from the photographs to suggest bad quality of work and

further held that respondent No.1 - the prosecuting officer have

not conducted the required tests to establish less usage of cement

etc., and washing away of check dam was due to defective

construction is not established by the respondents and also held

that the rainfall statistics certified by the MRO/Talamadu and the

press clipping (Eenadu District Edition dt.22.08.2001) and as per

the resolution of the EAS water sheds clearly established that the

check dam was damaged due to heavy floods in August, 2001 and

washing away of the check dam was not due to the defective

construction. The respondent No.2 disagreeing with the findings

of the enquiry officer issued notice dated 28.05.2005 and

thereafter passed order dated 03.04.2005 imposing punishment of

reduction in pay permanently by three stages.

7. Respondent No.2 imposed major punishment without

ordering any independent enquiry, though it is settled proposition

of law that the disciplinary authority may accept or reject the

enquiry officer's findings. However, respondent No.2 in the

absence of any other material evidence on record, imposed major

punishment of withholding of three annual grade increments with

cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed

statutory appeal before appellate authority and said authority

without giving any reasons much less valid reasons simply rejected

the appeal by its order dated 24.11.2008, the operative portion of

the order reads as follows:

"...Government after careful examination of the matter with reference to the records and material available have observed that there are no new points of facts in his Appeal Petition to interfere with the penalty awarded b y the Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests and the Appeal Petition of Sri S.Hanumanth Goud, FSO, Adilabad Division, is hereby rejected"

8. It is also relevant to place on record that the petitioner

raised several grounds in the appeal but respondent No.1 has not

considered any ground and simply rejected the appeal and

passed cryptic order and also rejected the Memorial petition by

its order dated 15.07.2010. It further appears from the record

that petitioner submitted representation to the Chief Minister on

25.06.2014 requesting to reconsider the punishment imposed by

respondent No.2 dated 03.04.2006 and the said representation

was forwarded to the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 rejected

the said application on 06.10.2015.

9. It is already stated supra that aggrieved by the orders

passed by respondent No.3 dated 03.04.2006, the petitioner filed

statutory appeal and the appellate authority - respondent No.1

simply rejected the appeal without giving any notice and

opportunity to the petitioner and passed cryptic order without

assigning any reasons, much less valid reasons.

10. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member

Board of Revenue 1, relying upon the judgment in King v.

London County Council [(1931) 2 KB 215, 243] the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that no order adverse to a party

should be passed without hearing them, which reads as

follows:

"Wherever any body of persons (1) having legal authority (2) to determine questions affecting rights of subjects and (3) having the duty to act judicially (4) act in excess of their legal authority -- a writ of certiorari may issue". It will be seen from the ingredients of judicial act that there must be a duty to act judicially. A tribunal, therefore, exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case in the manner known to law. If the provisions of a particular statute or rules made there under do not provide for it, principles of natural justice demand it. Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would be void. As a writ of certiorari will be granted to remove the record of proceedings of an inferior tribunal or authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial acts, ex hypothhesi it follows that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction shall also act judicially in disposing of the proceedings before it.

11. In the case on hand, respondent No.1 rejected the appeal

without giving opportunity to the petitioner and also without

1 AIR 1963 SC 786

giving any reasons much less valid reasons only on the ground

that there is no fresh ground. Thus, the impugned order passed

by respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside.

12. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner

bonafidely prosecuted the proceedings by filing Memorial petition

and also mercy petition/representation, but the petitions were

rejected by respondent No.1 on 15.10.2010 and 06.10.2015

respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this present writ

petition. In view of the same, the contention raised by the