N. Bhushan vs State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2506 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2506 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2023

Telangana High Court

N. Bhushan vs State Of Telangana, on 20 September, 2023

Bench: J Sreenivas Rao

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

             WRIT PETITION No.40764 of 2017

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"......to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus orders of the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.E1/1139/HR/2014 dated 20.07.2017 confirming the orders of 4th respondent and further passed orders for permanent removal from service in Proc.No.E2/1/1139/2014 dated 27.12.2014 directed to recover an amount of Rs.12,298/- + Rs.2,500/- penalty from the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, inviolation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Director, Rural Development in Circular No.666/EGS(P)/2012 dated 08.01.2013 and consequently, set aside the orders of 4th respondent dated 27.12.2014 and 3rd respondent dated: 20.07.2017 by directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to continue into service as Filed Assistant of Kistarayipalli Village and pass....."

02. Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel

for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for

respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Services-II representing learned Government

Pleader for Services-I and Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned

counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the record.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was appointed as Filed Assistant,

Kistarayipalli Grama Panchayat, Chintapally Mandal,

Nalgonda District in the year 2006 under MGNREGS.

During the service, respondent No.4 issued showcause

notice No.E2-1/1139/2014 on certain allegations i.e.,

change of location, benami musters and misappropriation

of funds and that the petitioner submitted detailed

explanation dated 28.07.2014 and that respondent No.4

passed Orders in R.C.No.E2/1/1139/2014 dated

27.12.2014 dropping the proceedings against the petitioner

and treating the same as first mistake and levied penalty of

Rs.14,798/-.

04. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner

preferred an Appeal before respondent No.3 Appellate

Authority. It is further contended by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that inspite of dropping the proceedings

by respondent No.4, the petitioner was not instated into

service as Field Assistant. The Appellate Authority without

considering the contentions of the petitioner passed

impugned Order dated 20.07.2017 enhancing the

punishment by removing the petitioner from services.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that the Appellate Authority is not having any jurisdiction

or authority to enhance the punishment in the appeal filed

by the petitioner and that the impugned Order passed by

respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction.

06. Learned counsel appearing for respondents

submits that in Order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the

respondents it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner

was warned and he was levied with penalty of Rs.14,798/-.

It is further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted

while filing appeal before Appellate authority that the

nature of order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the

respondent No.4 as 'removal order' and that there is no

illegally or irregularity in the impugned Order passed by

respondent No.3.

07. Having considered the rival submissions made

by the respective parties and on perusal of material

available on record, it clearly reveals that the petitioner

was appointed as Field Assistant, Kistarayipalli Grama

Panchayat, Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District in the

year 2006 under MGNREGS and respondent No.4 issued

showcause notice No.E2-1/1139/2014 with several

charges i.e., change of location, benami musters and

misappropriation of funds to the petitioner and the

petitioner submitted his explanation dated 28.07.2014 and

respondent No.4 passed Orders in R.C.No.E2/1/

1139/2014 dated 27.12.2014 wherein it is stated that the

petitioner neglected his duties and caused financial loss to

the Government and that the said amount of Rs.14,798/-

is liable to be recovered from the petitioner and further

stated that the mistake committed by the petitioner is

treated as first mistake and dropped the proceedings.

Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner filed appeal

before respondent No.3-appellate authority and the said

authority while dismissing the appeal enhanced the

punishment removing the petitioner from services in

addition to recovery of amount of Rs.14,798/- as ordered

by respondent No.4, especially, in the appeal filed by the

petitioner without mentioning any source of power and also

without giving any reasons.

08. It is very much relevant to mention here that

the respondent No.3 while exercising quasi-judicial

appellate powers ought to have considered the appeal by

appreciating the material evidence on record afresh and by

giving reasons. The Honourable Supreme Court in the

M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.Ltd and Another Vs.

Masood Ahmed 1 relying upon the Judgment of

S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 2 held that the

quasi-judicial authority or administrative authority

while passing orders should record reasons in

support of its conclusions. In the case on hand,

respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner, without giving any reasons and passed a cryptic

order, which reads as under:

"Therefore in accordance with the instructions under reference 9,10 and 11, the permanent removal of the Field Assistant from contract service besides recovery of Rs.14,798/- from FA is confirmed."

2010 9 SCC 496

1990 4 SCC 594

In such circumstances, the impugned order dated

20.07.2017 is liable to be set aside.

09. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Order

vide Proc.No.E1/1139/HR/2014 dated 20.07.2017, is set

aside, and the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the

appeal filed by the petitioner afresh, and pass appropriate

Order, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2)

months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, after

giving opportunity to the petitioner including personal

hearing.