IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Tatakula Siva Rama Krishna Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4527 of 2018
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14, 19, 21, 311 and 22(3)(b) - A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Section 51, 65 and 71 - Misappropriation of funds of the bank - Enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer - Employees Association - termination of the services - Alleging that petitioner, in connivance with one AM/Cashier, raised seven demand drafts worth shown gross negligence in discharge of duties and misappropriated the funds of the bank to an extent - Held, Petitioner was provided with an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, but without availing same, he directly approached Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, as such, writ petition is not maintainable, is also not acceptable, since the petitioner points out non-compliance of principles of natural justice as well as due process of law as contemplated in service law jurisprudence and as laid down under Article 311 of Constitution of India - Judgment on which the learned counsel placed reliance is not applicable to the facts of case on hand - Court is of opinion that impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside for not observing principles of natural justice and on ground that punishment of termination of services of petitioner is disproportionate to the offence committed by him - Writ Petition is allowed
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
2. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined as Paid Secretary in P.A.C.S., Pedaparupudi, on 12.10.1984. Thereafter, he got promotion and he was posted as Special Category Assistant (Staff Assistant) in the K.D.C.C. Branch, G.Konduru, 6th respondent herein, on 18.01.2012. While so, an enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was conducted on the affairs of the 6th respondent by the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer dated 10.07.2012, the petitioner was kept under suspension vide proceedings dated 03.10.2012 by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 27.11.2012 was issued alleging that the petitioner, in connivance with one T.Murali Krishna, AM/Cashier, raised seven demand drafts worth Rs.8,67,000/- and shown gross negligence in discharge of duties and misappropriated the funds of the bank to an extent of Rs.4,33,500/-.
ii) The learned counsel would further submit that the 3rd respondent simply issued an order terminating the services of the petitioner from service on 12.10.2015 by accepting the domestic enquiry report. In the order of termination, it was mentioned that no written objections were filed, though the petitioner submitted a written explanation on 08.08.2015 itself. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41141 of 2015 before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition by an order dated 20.07.2016 setting aside the order dated 12.10.2015 and directed the 3rd respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 0
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni
Brooke Bond India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Subba Raman (S) and Anr.
Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Limited Vs. K. Hanumantha Rao
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh MANU/SC/0423/1972 : (1972) I LLJ 180 SC
A delinquent employee is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic enquiry, especially when the employer is represented by legally trained persons.
(1) Dismissal – [Departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint that an evasive reply thereto may amount to admission – In a departmental enquiry, unless charge is admitted, burden to prove charge lies on....
Dismissal orders must be passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including providing the employee with a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and supplying a copy of the i....
The court established that in departmental inquiries, adherence to principles of natural justice is paramount, and failure to provide a fair opportunity to defend oneself can render the inquiry and s....
No pay cannot be applied to the present facts of the case, since the petitioner did not attend to work on account of illegal order of suspension and dismissal from service, passed by the appellants h....
Intentional avoidance of participation in enquiry proceedings waives the plea of natural justice and estops the petitioner from questioning the non-compliance of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.