Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
Mulla Shahudeen – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21670 of 2020
Decided On : 04-07-2022
NATURAL JUSTICE - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - [APCS(CC & A) RULES, 1991, RULE 20] - Where the disciplinary authority did not allow the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses mentioned in the charge memo, which is against the principles of natural justice, the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are liable to be set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Secondary Grade Teacher, was served with articles of charge for unauthorized absence from duties. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of charges 3 and 6. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and treating the period of absence as 'dies-non'. The petitioner appealed to the appellate authority, but the appeal was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disciplinary authority did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S(CC & A) Rules, 1991, by not allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses mentioned in the charge memo. This is against the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the appellate authority passed orders mechanically confirming the order of the disciplinary authority without assigning any reasons.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary authority followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S(CC & A) Rules, 1991? 2. Whether the appellate authority passed orders mechanically confirming the order of the disciplinary authority without assigning any reasons?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others AIR 1999 SC 22, which held that the High Court has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. However, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction if an effective and efficacious remedy is available. However, the alternative remedy does not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority to conduct an elaborate enquiry in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
'...to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings Rc. No. 2008/B1/2016, Dt. 28.11.2018 on the file of the 4th respondents in imposing a penalty of withholding of increment without cumulative effect and treating the period from 15.02.2016 to 04.03,2016 as Dies Non and proceedings Rc No. A1/2019 dt. 09.07.2019 on the file of the 3rd respondent in rejecting Appeal of the petitioner as illegal arbitrary and in violation of conduct rule sand accordingly set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents release all consequential benefits withhold due to the said impugned orders including the regularization of suspension period from 15.03.2016 to 01.10.2016 as on duty.'
2. Brief facts, as averred in the writ petition, are as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher(Urdu) on 25.01.2013. Since then, he has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of higher authorities. While he was working at M.P.P. School (General), Bhupathipalli Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, he was served with an article of charges on 15.07.2016 vide Rc. No. 2003/B1/2016, dated 22.04.2016, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.09.2016 denying the chargers. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner and he submitted report on 06.09.2017 finding that the charges 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 are not proved and charges 3 and 6 are proved. The enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner only after filing an application under the Right to Information Act. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer gave a questionnaire dated 28.08.2018 to the petitioner asking him to submit his reply, for which, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations.
In the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent, the period from 15.02.2016 to 04.03.2016 was treated as 'dies-non', whereas the petitioner submitted his leave application for the said period on medical grounds and it was accepted by the M.E.O. and paid salary to him also. When the 1st charge with regard to unauthorized absence for duties was not proved, treating the said period as dies-non is untenable and it amounts to major punishment. The respondents have not followed the rules in conducting departmental enquiry and passing the impugned orders. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds before the Appellate Authority, his appeal was rejected in mechanical manner. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The respondent No. 4 filed counter-affidavit stating that while the petitioner was working at MPP School, Bhupathipalli Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, he was served with articles of charge dated 22.04.2016, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 19.09.2016 denying all the charges. Subsequently, the 4th respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and he submitted the report dated 06.09.2017 finding that the charges 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are not proved and charges 3 and 6 are proved against the petitioner. He further stated that without taking permission and granting leave by the competent authority, he was absented to his duties from 15.02.2016 to 04.03.2016. Though the petitioner submitted his leave application along with the medical report, he was referred to the Medical Board with a request to the petitioner to appear before the said Board, but he did not appear. There is no irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned orders. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III. Perused the material papers on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while imposing the penalty, the disciplinary authority has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 2
The principles of natural justice are a fundamental requirement of any disciplinary proceedings and the failure to follow these principles renders the proceedings and any orders passed pursuant to th....
The imposition of punishment without conducting a proper enquiry and violating principles of natural justice renders the order invalid.
Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available only to those who are vigilant about their rights.
Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited; High Courts cannot interfere with findings or penalties unless they are manifestly illegal or shockingly disproportionate.
Disciplinary proceedings against a government employee should be completed within a specific timeframe, and any delay in conducting such proceedings may be considered illegal and arbitrary.
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
