Telangana High Court
Rayipudi Venkateswara Rao vs The Cotton Corporation Of India, on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.8259 OF 2023,
WRIT PETITION NO.8330 OF 2023
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.8334 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.8259 of 2023
In W.P.No.8259 of 2023, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the order of termination of his services as Junior
Cotton Purchaser vide Order No.CCI/HO/HRD/2022-23/1177
dt.10.03.2023 without considering the experience certificate and the
affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and
consequently to set aside the termination order and to pass such other
order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.8259 of 2023 are that
the petitioner has allegedly completed his MCA in the year 2008 from
Rajya Lakshmi Engineering College, Chennai which is affiliated to
Anna University, Chennai and after completing graduation, the
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
petitioner allegedly underwent some coaching on computer languages
also to pursue a job. The petitioner claims to have worked with the 5th
respondent from 11.10.2010 to 23.10.2012, and again from 21.07.2013
to 08.10.2014, i.e., for a total period of 3 years 2 months and his services
were utilised in supervising, purchasing and processing of cotton
including ginning and pressing. In the intervening period, when he was
not working with the 5th respondent in the year 2012, he got an
opportunity to work as a temporary Field Assistant in the CCI Branch
Office, Adilabad for a period of six months, i.e., from 01.12.2012 to
22.05.2013. It is submitted that in the year 2014, CCI (Cotton
Corporation of India Limited) had issued a Notification for the post of
Junior Cotton Purchaser and the petitioner applied for the same on
10.10.2014 and after several rounds of tests and interviews and after
perusal of the required documents, the petitioner was finally selected
and given appointment letter dt.03.03.2015. It is submitted that the
petitioner joined the said job on 16.03.2015 and continued to serve the
organisation. However, on 14.12.2016, the 2nd respondent issued a
show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging that he has secured
employment by indulging in fraudulent means with regard to his
experience with the previous employer and thus the appointment is void
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
ab initio. Aggrieved, the petitioner and others filed W.P.No.46015 of
2016 before this Court and initially this Court granted interim stay of the
show-cause notice and ultimately by final orders dt.07.11.2022, the
petitioners were directed to submit their explanation to the impugned
show-cause notice and the respondents were directed to consider the
same without going into the delay aspect in submitting the reply and
determine the case of the petitioner within a reasonable period
preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order. The respondents were directed to take into consideration the
explanation of the petitioners uninfluenced by any of the observations
made in the order. Thereafter, the petitioner herein submitted his reply
to the show-cause notice on 09.01.2023, and it is alleged that without
considering the same in proper perspective, the impugned termination
order has been passed.
3. The allegation is that the 3rd respondent has passed the
termination order dt.10.03.2023 on the ground that on verification of the
explanation filed by the petitioner, it was found that in the affidavit
submitted by the Proprietor of M/s. Sree Mahalakshmi Cotton Traders
(the 5th respondent), it was stated that in 2015, the CCI Vigilance Officer
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
has approached him as part of enquiry for information about the
petitioner and at that time, he had submitted the following documents:
attendance register, salary slips, ledger accounts and profit and loss
accounts of the business concern in which the petitioner claims to have
worked. But on verification, it was found that they were never supplied
by him to the Vigilance Officer at the time of verification or re-
verification. Therefore, it was held that the documents allegedly
provided by M/s. Sree Mahalakshmi Cotton Traders in support of the
employment of the petitioner cannot be considered as the said
documents lacked authenticity and cannot be relied upon. Challenging
the said termination order, W.P.No.8259 of 2023 has been filed.
4. This Court has not granted any interim order. The respondents 1
to 3 have filed their counter affidavit in support of the impugned order
of termination. During the course of arguments, while reiterating the
submissions made in the writ affidavit and also the counter affidavit, the
respective parties have placed reliance upon the following judgments.
5. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are as under:
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
(1) Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 1.
(2) Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries
Corporation Ltd. and another 2.
(3) State Bank of India and others Vs. Palak Modi and another 3.
(4) The Commandant, 8th Bn TSSP, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy
District and others Vs. The Venkata Sai Krishna and
another 4.
(5) Dineshbhai Dhudabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 5.
(6) Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra
and another 6.
(7) Bishan Lal Gupta Vs. The State of Haryana and others 7.
6. The judgments relied upon by the respondents are as under:
(1974) 2 SCC 831
(19920 2 SCC 21
(2013) 3 SCC 607
2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 150
R/Special Civil Application No.11518 of 2020 dt.07.02.2022 : C/SCA/11518/2020
(2012) 13 SCC 14
(1978) 1 SCC 202
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
(1) The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. and another Vs.
Vignesh S. 8
(2) J.S. Ravi Kumar Vs. The Cotton Corporation of India
Limited and others 9.
(3) Gaurav W. Watane Vs. Cotton Corporation of India Ltd.
and others 10.
(4) Shri Gaurav W. Watane Vs. The Cotton Corporation of
India Limited and others 11.
(5) Shri Amar Jalindar Yamgar Vs. The Cotton Corporation
of India Ltd. and others 12.
(6) The Cotton Corporation of India Limited and another Vs.
Janardhan Gopal Panchal 13.
(7) Ram Kishan Khoiwal Vs. Cotton Corporation of India
Limited 14.
Civil Appeal No.6985 of 2021 dt.22.11.2021
Review petition (Civil) No.10 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No.6986 of 2021 dt.27.01.2022
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.8722 of 2018 dt.16.04.2018
Writ Petition (L) No.3137 of 2016 of Bombay High Court dt.08.12.2016
Writ Petition (L) No.3134 of 2016 dt.08.12.2016
W.A.Nos.240, 242, 243, 275, 279 and 911 of 2017 dt.21.03.2022
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
(8) Praveen Kumar Jain, S/o Shri Om Prakash Jain Vs. The
Cotton Corporation of India Limited and another 15.
(9) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others 16.
(10) Union of India and others Vs. M.Bhaskaran 17.
(11) Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Maharashtra 18
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the services of the petitioner have been terminated
solely on the ground that he has failed to produce the relevant
documents to establish genuineness of his experience certificates and
therefore, it was established that the petitioner has secured employment
in the Corporation by indulging in fraudulent means and has produced
false experience certificates violating the Cotton Corporation of India
(Conduct, Discipline & Appeal), 1975 and therefore, his employment in
the Corporation has become ab initio void. The petitioner in
R/Letters Patent Appeal No.1470 of 2018 in R/Special Civil Application No.16117 of 2016
dt.27.02.2023
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15006 of 2016 dt.05.05.2017
(2016) 8 SCC 471
1995 Supp (4) SCC 100
2016(6) AIR Bom.R 585
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
W.P.No.8259 of 2023 has allegedly submitted the experience certificate
issued by M/s. Sree Mahalakshmi Cotton Traders.
8. The petitioner, consequent to the direction of this Court in the
earlier round of litigation, submitted his detailed explanation as to how
the provisions of the professional tax and provident fund are not
applicable to his case. It was submitted that since the proprietary
concern did not have more than 10 employees, the provisions of
professional tax and provident fund were not applicable. Along with the
explanation, the petitioner had also submitted various documents
including the copies of salary slips and the ledger accounts of M/s. Sree
Mahalakshmi Cotton Traders pertaining to his salaries for the financial
years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and also the
profit and loss accounts. This Court, after going through the relevant
documents, finds that the said concern, i.e., the 5th respondent has filed
income tax return for the relevant assessment year, i.e., for 2011-12 on
18.09.2011 and that the said concern has also filed its returns of income
for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 also within the
due date for filing of the return for the relevant assessment year and in
the profit and loss accounts of the relevant years, the salaries paid to its
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
employees are reflected and in the salaries account, the name of the
petitioner and also the amount paid to him are mentioned. These are all
statutory documents which are filed by the concern, i.e., the 5th
respondent before the Income Tax Department. The respondents 1 to 4
(CCI) would have to verify whether the salaries accounts as claimed by
the petitioner have been filed along with the return of income and if it
were filed, then the claim of the petitioner cannot be doubted. As seen
from the cash vouchers and also the attendance register, the signatures
of the petitioner are not available in the attendance register and the
handwriting on all the vouchers seem to be same and voucher numbers
are not available. Therefore, weightage may not be given to these
documents, but the income tax returns and the mention of the
petitioner's name in the accounts would definitely prove if the petitioner
has worked with the said company and whether the experience
certificates are genuine.
9. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are all on the issue as
to whether an enquiry can be conducted behind the back of the
delinquent employee when the delinquent employee is terminated from
service on the basis of such enquiry and it was held to be in clear
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the fact that the
matter is being now remanded back to the file of the disciplinary
authority of respondents 1 to 4 (CCI), this Court deems it fit and proper
to direct the respondents 1 to 4 (CCI) to afford a fair opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and also an opportunity of cross-examining the
witnesses by the petitioner, if any, before taking any decision in the
matter.
10. Therefore, in view of the above facts, this Court is of the opinion
that the respondents 1 to 4 (CCI) ought to have verified the documents
filed by the 5th respondent and thereafter ought to have taken a decision
instead of rejecting the same on the ground that it is an afterthought. In
view of the same, the impugned order dt.10.03.2023 is set aside with a
direction to the respondents 1 to 4 (CCI) to reconsider the explanation of
the petitioner after verifying the statutory documents particularly the
income tax returns and the documents uploaded along with the income
tax returns by the 5th respondent and if the respondents 1 to 4 (CCI) are
satisfied about the experience of the petitioner, then suitable action shall
be taken by them. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
11. With these observations, the W.P.No.8259 of 2023 is disposed of.
W.P.Nos.8330 and 8334 of 2023
12. Since the facts the case in the other two Writ Petitions, i.e.,
W.P.Nos.8330 and 8334 of 2023 are also similar, similar directions as
issued in W.P.No.8259 of 2023 are issued setting aside the impugned
orders therein and directing the respondents to reconsider the
explanation of the petitioners therein after verifying the income tax
returns of their erstwhile employers and if it is found that the experience
certificates submitted by the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8330 of 8334 of
2023 are genuine, then the respondents in W.P.Nos.8330 and 8334 of
2023 also shall take appropriate action accordingly. The entire exercise
shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
13. W.P.Nos.8330 and 8334 of 2023 are also disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
14. In the result,
(i) W.P.No.8259 of 2023 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
W.P.Nos.8259, 8330 & 8334 of 2023
(ii) W.P. No.8330 of 2023 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(iii) W.P.No.8334 of 2023 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in all these Writ Petitions
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 26.04.2024
Svv
