Telangana High Court
Sripathi Tarigopula, Hderabad vs Govt Of A.P Hyderabad And 2 Others on 21 April, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.14800 of 2008
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated
01.05.2008 passed in OA.No.2039 of 2004 on the file of the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') whereunder the said OA was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and
learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child
Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Originally, this Writ Petition was filed by the delinquent
employee-Sripathi Tarigopula/petitioner No.1 and during the
pendency of the Writ Petition, he died and as such, his legal
representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
4. Brief factual matrix of the case, shorn off unnecessary
details, is that petitioner No.1 was appointed as District Probation
Officer Grade-II in the month of January, 1975 and was promoted
as District Probation Officer Grade-I in the year 1981 and further
2 AKS,J & LNA, J
promoted as Superintendent/Regional Inspector of Probation on
16.08.1994; that while working as such, from 17.08.1994 to
04.10.1999, on a complaint that he has deliberately committed acts
of gender discrimination and sexual harassment on subordinate
female employees against the spirit of providing basic human
rights of protection from sexual harassment and right to work with
dignity to the women employees in work place, enquiry
proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under
suspension, vide GO.Rt.No.391, dated 01.10.1999.
4.1. Challenging the said GO., petitioner No.1 filed OA.No.5943
of 1999 before the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of vide
order dated 03.07.2002 directing the respondents to dispose of the
charges framed against petitioner No.1 within two months from the
date of receipt of the said order and in case, no charges are framed,
petitioner No.1 shall be reinstated into service forthwith.
4.2. Thereafter, in the process of enquiry, the Deputy Director,
Women Development and Child Welfare Department, who was
appointed as Enquiry Officer, issued summons to petitioner No.1,
which were returned as unclaimed and as such, summons were got
published in two leading newspapers, viz., Deccan Chronicle and
3 AKS,J & LNA, J
Vaartha on 03.12.2002 and 04.12.2002 respectively, informing him
to attend the enquiry and defend himself; that even after the said
publication, petitioner No.1 did not appear and participate in the
enquiry and hence, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with enquiry on
17.12.2002, 18.12.2002 and 08.01.2003 and submitted his report
dated 15.02.2003.
4.3. Alleging that the respondents did not implement the
aforesaid orders of the Tribunal passed in OA.No.5943 of 1999,
petitioner No.1 filed CA.No.31 of 2003 and the Tribunal vide order
dated 29.09.2003 directed the official respondents to communicate
a copy of enquiry report to petitioner No.1 and to pass final orders
duly taking into consideration the explanation of petitioner No.1.
4.4. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.09.2003, the respondents
communicated copy of the enquiry report to petitioner No.1, vide
Memo No.EA1/934/99-1, dated 06.11.2003, asking him to submit
his written defence statement, if any, on the findings of the enquiry
report within ten days therefrom and further, to indicate whether he
desires a personal hearing in order to fix a date of hearing. In reply
thereto, petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated
21.11.2003 with a request to provide information/papers relating to
4 AKS,J & LNA, J
enquiry report, however, in the said explanation, he neither denied
the charges levelled against him nor requested any personal
hearing. Since the respondents did not conclude the proceedings,
the Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2003 directed the respondents
to conclude the disciplinary proceedings on or before 31.01.2004,
failing which, petitioner No.1 shall be reinstated into service.
Subsequently, the respondents issued GO.Ms.No.7 dated
01.03.2004 removing petitioner No.1 from service by observing
that copies of charge sheet and enquiry report and all other
communications have been adequately served on petitioner No.1
and he is well aware of the contents therein, however, he has been
avoiding service of the same on him by adopting dilatory tactics;
and consequently, CA.No.31 of 2003 filed by petitioner No.1 was
closed by the Tribunal.
4.5. Aggrieved by GO.Ms.No.7 dated 01.03.2004, petitioner
No.1 filed OA.No.2039 of 2004 before the Tribunal and the
Tribunal vide its order dated 01.05.2008 dismissed the said OA
holding that the impugned proceedings are perfectly valid and do
not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Aggrieved by the said
orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.
5 AKS,J & LNA, J
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
Tribunal failed to notice that the enquiry was not conducted in
accordance with Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules; that the charge
memo and the correspondence have not been served on petitioner
No.1 at his residential address and as such, his opportunity to
participate in the enquiry and putforth his defence was denied,
thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel
further submitted that in spite of petitioner No.1 submitting
representation dated 21.01.2004 seeking certain information and
records, the same were not furnished to him, however, the Tribunal
failed to appreciate the said fact. He further submitted that the
Tribunal erred in observing that no written statement was filed by
petitioner No.1 despite orders of Tribunal in CA.No.37 dated
31.12.2003.
5.1. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the
Tribunal failed to note that the proceedings were not
communicated to petitioner No.1 and the enquiry was conducted
behind the back of petitioner No.1 without giving him an
opportunity to defend his case. He further submitted that the
Tribunal has also failed to consider that punishment of removal
from service is a major penalty which can be imposed only when
6 AKS,J & LNA, J
there is misappropriation of funds, etc, however, in the present
case, no such charges are levelled against petitioner No.1 and as
such, the punishment imposed on petitioner No.1 is highly
excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled
against him.
5.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal failed to
consider that enquiry officer has not discussed each charge levelled
against petitioner No.1 with available record and except holding
that all charges levelled against petitioner No.1 are proved, no
reasons were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. He further
contended that the Tribunal committed error in dismissing the OA
with an observation that impugned proceedings therein i.e.,
GOMs.No.7, dated 01.03.2004 are issued based on evidence which
clearly established the guilt of petitioner No.1, without considering
the fact that no opportunity was given to petitioner No.1 to
participate in the enquiry and the same is an ex parte enquiry and
as such, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. By submitting
thus, learned counsel prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
6. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court:-
7 AKS,J & LNA, J
1. Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and
others 1,
2. State Bank of India Vs. D.C.Aggarwal 2
3. Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India 3
4. B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India 4
7. Learned counsel also relied on judgment of erstwhile High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.Pushpa Raj Vs. Depot Manager,
APSRTC, Nizamabad 5.
8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Women
Development and Child Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1
and 2 contended that petitioner No.1 was aware of the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him, however, he avoided notices sent
to him by the disciplinary authority; that the letters and
communications sent to petitioner No.1 to the address reflected in
the office records were returned, as such, notice was issued to him
by way of paper publication in Deccan Chronicle on 03.12.2002
and Vaartha on 04.12.2002 notifying petitioner No.1 to appear
before the Enquiry Officer on 17.12.2002; that despite the same, he
did not cooperate with the enquiry and therefore, the Enquiry
AIR 1998 SC 2722
AIR 1993 SC 1197
2002(7) SCC 142
AIR 1996 SC 484
1996(3) ALD 586
8 AKS,J & LNA, J
Officer has submitted his report basing on the material available
and the statement of the witnesses and came to a conclusion that
the charges framed against petitioner No.1 were proved; that the
said report of the Enquiry Officer was communicated to petitioner
No.1 and the same was received by him on 20.11.2003; and that
petitioner No.1 also submitted an explanation to the Government
on 23.11.2023.
8.1. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that in his
explanation, petitioner No.1 did not seek personal hearing and the
Government, considering the enquiry report as well as the reply
submitted by petitioner No.1, removed him from service vide
GOMs.No.7 dated 01.03.2004, hence, the contention of petitioner
No.1 that enquiry was conducted behind his back and no
opportunity was given to him to participate in the enquiry are
untenable. He further submitted that in the enquiry, as many as
seven charges were framed against petitioner No.1; that the
witnesses have given statements against petitioner No.1; that the
Enquiry Officer, basing on the material available on record as well
as the statements of the witnesses, has examined each article of
charge and recorded his findings and hence, the allegation of the
petitioners that enquiry report is not based on any evidence is
9 AKS,J & LNA, J
contrary to the record and untenable. Learned Government Pleader
finally contended that having avoided notices and having not
participated in the enquiry, petitioner No.1 cannot now contend
that the enquiry was conducted behind his back and that principles
of natural justice are not followed and prayed to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire
material available on record vis-à-vis the judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioners.
10. In Dinanath Shantaram Karekar's case (cited supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that charge memo or charge sheet sent
by registered post if returned with endorsement 'not found' cannot
be treated as service on the employee. The said judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case
inasmuch as in the present case, when the notices sent to the
petitioner's address were returned, notices were issued by way of
publication in two leading newspapers as stated hereinbefore,
therefore, the service is sufficient, unlike return of cover with
endorsement 'not found' in the aforesaid judgment.
10 AKS,J & LNA, J
11. In D.C.Aggarwal's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that imposition of punishment on material neither
supplied nor disclosed to the delinquent is not proper and
sustainable. In the case on hand, since the Enquiry Officer as well
as the department have sent the communications to the address of
petitioner No.1 reflected in his Service Register and further,
publication was also issued. Further, the wife of the deceased
employee in her letter dated 19.01.2004 accepted that her husband
is residing in the quarters. Therefore, this Court holds that the
contention of petitioner No.1 that without supplying the relevant
material to him, he was imposed major punishment of removal
from service is not tenable and sustainable. In the above facts and
circumstances of this case, the aforesaid judgment is not
applicable.
12. In Sher Bahadur's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the evidence must link the charged officer with the
alleged misconduct otherwise, it would be no evidence in law.
12.1. In the present case, in the enquiry, all the witnesses have
given statements before the Enquiry Officer, wherein they deposed
against petitioner No.1, therefore the Enquiry Officer considering
the statements of the witnesses vis-à-vis the charges framed against
11 AKS,J & LNA, J
petitioner No.1 held the same to be proved. Thus, in the present
case, the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer linked
petitioner No.1 with the charges of sexual harassment levelled
against him and as such, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgment is, in fact, followed in the present case.
13. In B.C.Chaturvedi's case (cited supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the Tribunal/High Court can direct the authority to
reconsider punishment or it may itself, to shorten the litigation, in
exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with
cogent reasons in support thereof.
14. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the
deceased employee are grave/serious in nature and the record also
discloses that earlier different punishments ranging from censure to
reduction in rank as well as permanent reversion to lower rank
were imposed on petitioner No.1 which shows his conduct,
therefore it cannot be said that punishment imposed on petitioner
No.1 is disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against
him. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reconsider the
punishment imposed on petitioner No.1.
15. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Pushpa
Raj's (cited supra) relates to punishment based on the quantum of
12 AKS,J & LNA, J
loss occasioned to the department. In the present case, the
allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 are sexual harassment
and hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case.
16. Perusal of record would disclose that serious allegations of
sexual harassment were levelled against petitioner No.1 and he was
suspended pending enquiry and an officer was appointed as
Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made against
petitioner No.1. It is also evident from record, more particulary in
the enquiry report, that initially, notice sent to petitioner No.1 by
the Enquiry Officer to the address available in the records of the
department were returned unserved with endorsement 'unclaimed';
that subsequently, summons were served on petitioner No.1 on
11.12.2002 as per the postal acknowledgment No.RL1620, dated
07.12.2002, however, petitioner No.1 did not choose to appear
before the Enquiry Officer and participate in the enquiry to
putforth his defence, and therefore the Enquiry Officer was forced
to issue notices through publication in two leading newspapers, as
stated supra, and despite the same, petitioner No.1 did not
participate in the enquiry, therefore the Enquiry Officer proceeded
with the enquiry and recorded the statement of witnesses on
13 AKS,J & LNA, J
17.12.2002, 18.12.2002 and 08.01.2003 and as many as seven
charges were framed against petitioner No.1.
17. Perusal of the enquiry report also goes to show that the
witnesses have given elaborate statements and the Enquiry Officer
has dealt with each article of charge individually and has recorded
his findings by duly taking into consideration the statements given
by the witnesses and came to a conclusion that the charges leveled
against petitioner No.1 are proved. Therefore, this Court does not
find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for petitioner
No.1 that enquiry report is not based on evidence and that the
findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
18. As rightly pointed by the learned Government Pleader, in
GOMs.No.7, Women Development and Child and Disabled
Welfare (JJ) Department, dated 01.03.2004, it is specifically
mentioned that wife of petitioner No1 in her letter dated
19.01.2004 has confirmed and accepted that her husband was
residing in the quarters at No.10-4-44, Himayathnagar, to which
charge memo and letters were sent, therefore the contention of
petitioner No.1 that letters and charge memo were not sent to his
correct address is factually incorrect and untenable.
14 AKS,J & LNA, J
19. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda 6, the Hon'ble Suprme
Court while dealing with the issue as to whether the Tribunal has
power to modify the penalty awarded by the competent authority
on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the
misconduct proved, at para 27 of the judgment, held as under:
"27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or
punishment cannot be equated with an appellate
jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the
findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority
where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is
appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty
on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent
authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If
there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in
accordance with principles of natural justice what
punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent
authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is
imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no
power to substitute its own discretion for that of the
authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is
certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with.
The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the
conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent
(1989) 2 SCC 177
15 AKS,J & LNA, J
authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found
to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
20. By observing thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
order of the Tribunal imposing a lesser penalty cannot be sustained
as the Tribunal cannot step into the shoes of inquiry officer if the
penalty imposed by the inquiry officer is based on the proved
misconduct. [
21. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is not inclined to delve into
the merits of the case.
22. It is relevant to note that in the present case, petitioner No.1
did not choose to participate in the enquiry proceedings, which
resulted in conclusion of enquiry proceedings ex parte and
ultimately, for the proven misconduct i.e., Articles of Charge-I to
VII, the order was passed by the competent authority imposing the
punishment of removal from service on petitioner No.1.
23. It is apposite to note that no perversity or arbitrariness is
attributed to the enquiry officer or the competent authority who
passed the order imposing the punishment of removal from service
on petitioner No.1.
16 AKS,J & LNA, J
24. This Bench is conscious of the fact that the scope of
interference in disciplinary proceedings is very limited, and unless
perversity or lack of evidence or that the punishment imposed is
disproportionate to the proved misconduct is shown, the Court
cannot interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority.
25. In the instant case, this Court finds that the report of the
Inquiry Officer is based on evidence and the punishment imposed
on petitioner No.1 by the disciplinary authority commensurates to
the proven misconduct of petitioner No.1, therefore, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary
authority, which was upheld by the Tribunal in the impugned
order.
26. In the light of the foregoing reasons and having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
view that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or infirmity
in passing the impugned order and further, the petitioners failed to
made out any case warranting interference of the impugned order
by this Court.
27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
17 AKS,J & LNA, J
28. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:21.04.2025
dr
