Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
U.V. Raghavaiah, S/o. Venkata Nageswara Rao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8490 of 2015
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. Ramamohan.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of following prescribed procedures and recording objective facts when taking disciplinary action against employees.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Employment Dispute - 3.11 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment of SERP Employees - 8.7 Special procedure in certain cases
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of the 2nd respondent, were removed from service without conducting an enquiry for alleged misappropriation by the Mandal Samakya Accountant. They challenged the removal through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order did not follow the prescribed procedure and failed to record the impracticability to hold an inquiry, similar to Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Failure to conduct an enquiry before removal, compliance with the terms and conditions of employment, and applicability of 8.7 Special procedure in certain cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as it did not follow the prescribed procedure and failed to record the impracticability to hold an inquiry, similar to Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, allowing the writ petition. The competent authority was directed to take appropriate action after objectively considering the entire record.
ORDER :
This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :
“....to issue an writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in file No.5079/SERP/HRII/KRISHNA, DATED 4.1.2014 is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to 3.11 of the employees terms and conditions and pass.....”
2. The petitioner was appointed as Master Book Keeper in the month of August, 2003 in the 2nd respondent agency, which is under the direct control of the Panchayat Raj Department. The petitioner was promoted as Community Coordinator on 19.02.2008 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Project Manager/Mandal Coordination on 03.06.2011 and since then, he has been discharging his duties in the said post. The 2nd respondent issued an order of the petitioner’s duty chart in which, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner have to coordinate with cluster coordination and mobilize the SHG in the Mandal level. The petitioner has to monitor and ensure the effective implementation of all Community Resource Persons strategies to the Mandal. The petitioner was not assigned the duty of maintenance of accounts or drawal of amounts from the banks as per the petitioner’s duty chart. There is a separate wing to maintain the accounts, namely an accountant, Assistant Project Manager (Finance), District Project Manager (Finance).
3. The second petitioner herein was appointed as Community Disabled Worker on 08.12.2006 and was promoted thereafter as District Micro Finance groups on 03.06.2011 and since then, the 2nd petitioner is also working in the said post. As per the Job Chart of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd petitioner’s primary responsibility is to ensure that all books of accounts of mandal Samakya regarding APRIGP, MPSP, CIF, General, other funds, Abhaya Hastam, BMCU, Gender FCC and other accounts in operation at Mandal Samakya are updated and are kept ready at any point of time. She has been entrusted with the above nature of duties in the Challapalli Cluster, which consists of four (4) mandals namely Challapalli, Ghantasala, Movva and Machilipatnam.
4. While the matter being so, both the petitioners have been representing to the Project Director that the Accountant is not at all handing over the books and not even showing the account books every month. In spite of the same, the authorities kept quite on the said representations. The Assistant Project Manager (Finance) and District Project Manager (Finance) were also having a job chart in which it is clearly mentioned that they should take minimum 15 days tour to Mandal Samakya to verify the books of accounts of Mandal Samakya and that they have to get periodic information from the Community based organizers i.e., bank balances, outstanding advances, receipts and payments account and any other information as required by them. They have to facilitate the audit process by coordinating with District Micro Finance group and monthly generation of cash book, general ledger, advance ledger and receipts and payment account Indira Kranthi Padam and get approval from the project director.
5. As per the job chart of the Assistant Project Manager (Finance) and District Project Manager (Finance), it is clear that they are responsible to maintain the marginal level accounts by coordinating with the accountant. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent on 28.10.2013 complaining about the Mandal accountant for misutilisation of funds. On receiving the said representation, the 3rd respondent appointed Additional Project Director, IKP, Vijayawada on 29.10.2013 as an enquiry officer to enquire into the finance irregularities brought to the notice of the APA, Machilipatnam. The Additional Project Director conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report on 30.10.2013 stating that the accountant has misappropriated an amount of Rs.38,00,000/- and accountant’s state
