Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.KONDAIAH
G.Papaiah - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Medical Services, Secunderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-19-75
DISCIPLINARY ACTION - WITHHOLDING INCREMENT - SPEAKING ORDER - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE - GRANT OF LEAVE - CONFLICTING CHARGES - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1965, RULE 15 (3).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Chowkidar at Station Health Organisation, Golconda, challenged the order withholding his increment for one year on the grounds that it was not a speaking order, violated principles of natural justice, and that the charge of unauthorized absence was not sustainable in view of the grant of extraordinary leave.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was not a speaking order as it did not provide valid and justifiable reasons for the punishment imposed. It also held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report despite his request. Further, the court held that the charge of unauthorized absence was not sustainable as extraordinary leave had been granted for the period in question.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order was a speaking order? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated? 3. Whether the charge of unauthorized absence was sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A disciplinary authority, while imposing a penalty on a Government servant, exercises quasi-judicial powers and the orders must be speaking orders. 2. The disciplinary authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances and record valid and justifiable reasons or grounds in support of its conclusion. 3. A copy of the Enquiry Officer's report must be supplied to the petitioner in the interest of justice. 4. When leave is granted to a public servant, it must be considered that he is permitted to absent himself from duty for that period and it is not permissible to proceed against him for absenting from duty for the same period.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order in respect of the stoppage of increment only, while upholding the transfer order. The writ petition was allowed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS application by the petitioner, a Chowkidar at Station Health Organisation, Golconda, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is to quash the Order No. 4565/p/m-3 dated 3-8-1973 passed by the Assistant Director of Medical Services, Headquarters, Andhra (Indep) Sub-Area, Secunderabad, the respondent herein, withholding his increment for one year, on several grounds.
( 2 ) MR. A. Lakshmanachar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order is not a speaking order and it is violative of principles of natural justice as his client was not supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and copies of some other material documents in spite of his requesting for the same. He further urges that charge No. 2 relating to the unauthorised absence of the petitioner from duty from 16th May to 25th May, 1973 is not sustainable in view of the fact that extraordinary leave has been granted by the concerned authority on 18-6-1973 itself and in any event, the first charge relating to misbehaviour of the petitioner on 16/05/1973 is in conflict with charge No. 2 and therefore, the impugned order must be quashed.
( 3 ) THE claim of the petitioner is resisted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government contending inter alia that a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer need not be given to the petitioner, as the respondent has followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 (3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and no second notice relating to the proposed punishment need be given. He states that the impugned order is not violative of principles of natural justice nor it is laconic and the respondent is empowered and also justified in passing the impugned order and there is no conflict between the two charges and the second charge also is maintainable as the granting of extraordinary leave for the period does not prevent the disciplinary authority from framing the charge No. 2 and passing the impugned order.
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contents of the parties, it is not only profitable but necessary to notice the two main charges framed by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner as indicted in page 4 of the counter-affidavit and they read thus :-- "annexure" Statement of articles of Charge framed against Sri g. Papaiah, Chowkidar S. H. O. Golconda. "that the said Shri G. Papaiah, Chowkidar while functioning as Chowkidar in S. H. O. Golconda, behaved in a manner prejudicial to the Government Servants Conduct Rules on 16/05/1973 at 12-00 hours while reporting for duty. "annexure-II" The individual in spite of his assurance that he was joining duty on 16-5-1973 and having been put on duty, did not come for duty. " The Enquiry Officer, after examining a number of witnesses and documents, submitted his findings, conclusions and recommendations in his report dated 21-7-1973. He gave salient findings and summary of his enquiry in the report and arrived at the following conclusion and made recommendations as follows:- (1) No. MES 410323 Civ, Chowkidar Sri G. Papaiah of S. H. O. Golconda has been found guilty of all the charges framed against him. (2) In addition, his character and personality (as pointed descriptively in summary) has taken a turn towards indicipiline, lacking devotion to duty, developing imaginary fear thus prejudicing himself to all his superiors and firmly believing in violence also. (3) It is recommended that he be given some suitable documentary punishment for records and given a final warning to rectify himself of all the weak and bad points. " The respondent, who is the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order on 3-8-1973 which reads thus :"after a careful examination of the disciplinary case of Civilian Chowkidar of S. H. O. Golconda Shri G Papaiah, the undersigned is satisfied that the said Sr. G. Papaiah is guilty of the charges levelled against him vide charge-sheet date
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
