V. V. R. K. Srinivas vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Endowments Department

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(AP) 83

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar and Anis, JJ.
Sri. V.V.R.K. Srinivas – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Endowments Department and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 17685 & 31180 of 2016
Decided On : 07-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. S. Ashok Anand Kumar and Sri. K. Ananda Rao.
For the Respondent: Smt. Lalitha.

Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - petitioners in these cases were non-muster roll (NMR) employees petitioner in W.P. No. worked as a NMR Work Inspector while the petitioner in was a NMR Helper - By separate proceedings, their services were disengaged - Aggrieved thereby they filed these writ petitions - Learned Judge reliance was placed upon the order dated passed by another learned Judge of this Court it was held that even in the case of a NMR employee if the order of termination was not but had penal consequences and attached a stigma, it could not be passed without following the basic principles - Learned Judge hearing was not inclined to agree with this view and referred the matter for consideration by a Division Bench - Petitioner was working as NMR Work Inspector in the 3rd respondent temple - After issuing a show cause notice and considering the explanation of the petitioner the services of the petitioner were disengaged by the 3rd respondent by order dated and challenging the same - Petitioner placed reliance on the order of this Court in W.P. No. wherein it was held that even in the case of NMR worker also when the order of termination is having penal consequences attaching stigma - principles of natural justice should be followed while passing such an order - Court got a doubt whether the principles of natural justice or a regular enquiry as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is applicable in the case of NMR workers - Held, Petitioners fully participated in the Vigilance enquiry. Basing upon the findings recorded against them therein, vide the Vigilance report dated respondent temple put them on notice by duly supplying them a copy of the said report and offered them an opportunity to show-cause as to why their services should not be terminated - Having considered their explanations submitted in response thereto the respondent temple found the same to be unsatisfactory and accordingly resorted to dispensing with their services - Though this dispensation was undoubtedly in the nature of a punitive measure the fact remains that the petitioners cannot complain that they were not given an opportunity of hearing - Having been extended such opportunity to establish their innocence, not once but twice the petitioners necessarily have to demonstrate before this Court that they suffered prejudice for want of a regular departmental enquiry - No such attempt was made by either of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to demonstrate that such prejudice was caused to them - In the absence of such prejudice we are of the opinion that the opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioners was more than adequate considering their status as non-muster roll employees - They had no statutory or legal right to insist upon the procedure applicable to regular servants of the respondent temple being adopted in their cases and once sufficient opportunity of hearing was extended to them both at the time of the Vigilance enquiry and again before the termination of their services the principles of natural justice were adequately complied with - Principles of natural justice would be applicable even in the case of a NMR worker/ employee but the extent to which the principles of natural justice would have to be adhered to in such a case would depend upon the individual facts of each case - We find that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioners during the enquiry held and even thereafter - No cause is therefore made out to infer that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice - Petitions therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed.

ORDER :

1. These matters are coming up for consideration before this Bench on the reference made by a learned Judge of this Court.

2. The petitioners in these cases were non-muster roll (NMR) employees of Sri. Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Vijayawada. The petitioner in W.P. No. 17685 of 2016 worked as a NMR Work Inspector while the petitioner in W.P. No. 31180 of 2016 was a NMR Helper. By separate proceedings, their services were disengaged. Aggrieved thereby, they filed these writ petitions.

3. When W.P. No. 17685 of 2016 came up for hearing before the learned Judge, reliance was placed upon the order dated 30.12.2015 passed by another learned Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 41126 of 2015. Therein, it was held that even in the case of a NMR employee, if the order of termination was not simpliciter, but had penal consequences and attached a stigma, it could not be passed without following the basic principles of audi alteram partem. However, the learned Judge hearing W.P. No. 17685 of 2016 was not inclined to agree with this view and referred the matter for consideration by a Division Bench. The order of reference reads as under:

4. The petitioner was working as NMR Work Inspector in the 3rd respondent temple. After issuing a show cause notice and considering the explanation of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were disengaged by the 3rd respondent by order dated 20.05.2016 and challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order of this Court in W.P. No. 41126 of 2015 dated 30.12.2015, wherein it was held that even in the case of NMR worker also when the order of termination is having penal consequences attaching stigma, the principles of natural justice should be followed while passing such an order. This Court got a doubt whether the principles of natural justice or a regular enquiry as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is applicable in the case of NMR workers.

6. Since I am not in agreement with the view expressed by my learned Brother, this Court thinks it fit to refer the matter to a Division Bench for deciding the point with regard to application of principles of natural justice or conduct of regular enquiry in respect of termination of services of NMR workers.

7. Registry is directed to place this matter before appropriate Division Bench after obtaining orders from the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice.

8. It appears that W.P. No. 31180 of 2016 then came up for hearing and as W.P. No. 17685 of 2016 was already referred to a Division Bench for consideration, it was also posted along with W.P. No. 17685 of 2016. This is how the matters have come up before us.

9. Heard Sri. S. Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 17685 of 2016, Sri. K. Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 31180 of 2016, and Smt. Lalitha, learned standing counsel for the respondent Devasthanam/temple.

10. Perusal of the record reflects that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department of the State undertook an enquiry in relation to misappropriation of old iron gates of the old Anicut on Krishna River, Vijayawada, by a contractor of the respondent temple and submitted report dated 22.10.2009, recommending that suitable action be taken against the petitioners in both these cases. The Government of Andhra Pradesh thereupon addressed Memo dated 08.06.2010 enclosing a copy of the Vigilance report and requesting the Executive Officer of the respondent temple to take suitable action against the petitioners. Pursuant thereto, the respondent temple issued individual notices dated 18.04.2016 to both the petitioners calling upon them to show-cause as to why their services should not be dispensed with. Having considered their explanations, the respondent temple expressed dissatisfaction therewith and dispensed with their services.

11. At this stage, it may be noted that the fact situation obtaining in W.P. No. 41126

Click Here to Read the rest of this document