Telangana High Court
The Project Officer, Itda, Utnoor, vs K.Nago Rao on 28 February, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
`HON'BLE SRI JUS1TICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
W.P.No.27618 of 2010
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2010 passed in
O.A.No.4877 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'),
Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-III
appearing for the petitioners and Sri R.Sushanth Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st
respondent was working as a School Assistant in Ashram
Girls High School, Mahagaon, Sirpur Mandal, Adilabad
District. While so, on 02.01.2007 a girl child has
committed suicide and it was alleged that the 1st
respondent was responsible for the suicide of the said
girl. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him
by issuing a charge memo and the following two articles
of charges were framed.
"Article-I: that the said Sri K.Nago Rao, School
Assistant (Social) AHS(G) Mahagoan (U/S) has
committed certain irregularities that Kumari Mesram
Sangeetha D/o.Sambhu 10th Class AHS (G)
Mahagaon was committed suicide on 02.01.2007 by
jumping into the open well and expired on 02.01.2007
at 5.30 PM due to his pressure and warnings she
joined and corporeal with him in the night due to his
activities Kumari M.Sangeetha was felt insult in the
school and in front of the students of the school and
she jumped into the open well of the school. It
clearly shows that his gross negligence and not
discharging his legitimate duties being a responsible
Govt. Employee.
Article-II: That the said Sri K.Nago Rao,
School Assistant (Social) AHS(G) Mahagoan (U/S)
has committed certain irregularities that he has
created fear and given warnings to Kumari Mesram
Sangeetha D/o. Sambhu 10th Class student in night
time on 1.1.2007 at Qtr. No.1 after completion of
supervisory study duty and due to his activities
Kumari M.Sangeetha 10th Class student afraid of him
and joined and corporeal with in Qtr.No.1. In the
early hours the ANM was seen the said student and
enquired the matter later, the student was felt insult in
the school and in front of the students of the school
and jumped into open well and committed suicide.
He has spoiled the life of minor girl student. It
clearly shows that he is no longer fit to continue in
Government service and if people like him are
allowed to continue they shall play with the lines of
the children and shall be a hinderance to nation
building and that such people should not be allowed
to continue in the Government Service and definitely
in the education Sector when they can play havoc
with the lives of girls boarders and become a
hinderance to nation buildings also."
As the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent was
not convincing, the disciplinary authority has ordered
regular departmental enquiry and an Enquiry Officer was
appointed. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer has submitted his report during March
2007 holding that the charges leveled against the 1st
respondent were held to be proved. Thereafter, a show
cause notice was issued to the 1st respondent calling for
his explanation. After receiving explanation from the 1st
respondent, the disciplinary authority has imposed the
punishment of removal vide order dated 07.07.2007.
Aggrieved by the order of removal, the 1st respondent
has preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the
appellate authority has dismissed the same vide
proceedings dated 15.02.2008. Aggrieved by the same,
the 1st respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing
O.A.No.4877 of 2008. Without appreciating any of the
contentions raised by the petitioners, the Tribunal vide
order dated 22.04.2010 allowed the OA by setting aside
the order of removal and directed the petitioners to
reinstate the 1st respondent into service. Hence, the
present writ petition.
4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the
petitioners had contended that the charges levelled
against the 1st respondent were held to be proved in the
enquiry and hence, the disciplinary authority was justified
in imposing the punishment of removal against the 1st
respondent. The Tribunal ought not to have interfered
with the punishment of removal. Therefore, appropriate
orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the
order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
had contended that no opportunity was given to the 1st
respondent to defend his case before the enquiry officer
and the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statements
behind the back of the 1st respondent and no statements
were recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry
Officer has mechanically held that the charges levelled
against the 1st respondent were proved. Learned counsel
had further contended that for the very same set of
allegations, criminal proceedings were also initiated
against the 1st respondent vide S.C.No.82 of 2008 and the
1st respondent was also acquitted of the said S.C.No.82
of 2008 vide judgment dated 30.12.2008, whereunder a
specific finding was recorded by the Assistant Sessions
Judge, Adilabad, while acquitting the 1st respondent that
the offence under Section 376-B IPC could not be
proved against the 1st respondent by the prosecution.
When the Tribunal has noticed that enquiry was not
properly conducted and 1st the respondent was also
acquitted of the criminal charge, the Tribunal was
justified in interfering with the order of Tribunal and
rightly directed the petitioners to reinstate the 1st
respondent into service. Therefore, there are no merits
in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the
Tribunal has interfered with the order of Tribunal on the
ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted and
none of the witnesses were examined by the Enquiry
Officer in the domestic enquiry and the Tribunal has also
taken into consideration the fact that the respondent was
acquitted in S.C.No.82 of 2008 vide judgment dated
30.12.2008 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the findings
recorded by the Tribunal are valid. However, the
Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of
removal and straight away set aside the order of removal
by directing the petitioners to reinstate the 1st
respondent. The Tribunal ought to have remanded the
matter to the petitioners so as to enable them to
conclude the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with
law. The Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter
back to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the
stage where such injustice has been done i.e., in the form
of not extending the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the case of the 1st respondent is remanded
back to the petitioners to continue the disciplinary
proceedings from the stage when there is violation of
principles of natural justice. Hence, the Enquiry Officer's
report and the removal order, which is based upon such
defective report of the Enquiry Officer is also liable to be
set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting
aside the order dated 22.04.2010 passed in O.A.No.4877
of 2008 by the Tribunal and also the impugned removal
order. The matter is remanded back to the petitioners to
continue the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of
conducting fresh enquiry and the out of employment
period of the respondent have to be dealt with in
accordance with Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules.
Since the incident is of the year 2007, the petitioners are
directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The petitioners shall also take into account the fact
that the 1st respondent was acquitted of the criminal case
by the competent Criminal Court in S.C.No.82 of 2008
vide judgment dated 30.12.2008. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
_________________________________________
JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date: 28.02.2024
rkk
