IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
S. Rohini Raja – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & others - Respondents
W.P. No. 27099 of 2016
Decided on : 05-06-2023
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Investigation - Denied reasonable opportunity - Recovery of amount misappropriated - Issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that order issued by in so far as it relates to petitioner is illegal, and arbitrary apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and also consequential order issued by DIGP, directing Petitioner to remit amount are also illegal and arbitrary and set aside same - Held, Court vide its interim orders granted interim suspension of impugned order Petitioner is concerned said orders were made absolute vide orders of Court - Court opines quantified to be recovered from petitioner is without petitioner without petitioner even understanding basis for arriving alleged ground that loss is caused to Respondents due to lack of supervision by petitioner - Court opines that there is no justification in arriving at such an unilateral conclusion without issuing notice petitioner same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice - Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order No. I.X-2/2012-SZ-EC-2 dated 23.05.2015 issued by the Additional Director General, South Zone, CRPF, Hyderabad in so far as it relates to the petitioner is illegal, and arbitrary apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice and also the consequential order No. M.II.1/2015-Esst-2-GC AVD dated 03.07.2015 and also Order No. I.X.1/2015-Esst-2-GC AVD dated 29.03.2016 issued by the DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai, directing the Petitioner to remit the amount of Rs. 60,022.00 are also illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same.
3. The Case of the Petitioner in brief, is as follows:
a) The Petitioner is working as Second in Command in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and while working in 110 BN, petitioner was transferred to the Group Centre (GC), Chennai, Avadi and was assigned the duties of Deputy Commandant (Store), Accounts Officer including the Additional Charge of Vice-Chairman, Parivar Kalyan Gas Agency (PKGA).
b) Petitioner only held the office of Vice-Chairman in different spells and up to October 2009 and some period in November 2009 and thereafter charge was given to other officers.
c) Allegedly, there were discrepancies from the period 2006 to 2010 and during that period as many as 06 ADIGPs/DIGPs as Chairman, 13 Assistant/Deputy Commandants as Vice-Chairman, 10 Inspector /Sis as Manager, 04 Head Constables as gas NCO held the post in PKGA, Chennai and the Petitioner was one of the Vice-Chairman.
d) A court enquiry was already ordered by the DIGP, Chennai vide Office Order No. I.X.8/12-EC-II dated 06.06.2012 to enquire into variation of stocks, improper maintenance of Parivar Kalyan Gas Agency, Avadi, Chennai from the period 2005 and to fix up responsibility of the officials concerned and the Court of Enquiry found that more than Rs. 12 Lakhs were misappropriated by the staff of PKGA in a span of about 4 years from 2006 to the year 2010.
e) Additional Director General, South Zone, CRPF, Hyderabad issued order No. IX-2/2012-SZ-EC-2 dated 23.05.2015 for recovery of amount misappropriated, from the officers/personnel who held charge and write off of those who retired from service as per the report of the Court of Enquiry.
f) Based on the order of ADG, Hyderabad, the DIGP, GC, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai issued an order no. M.II.1/2015-Esst-2-GC AVD dated 03.07.2015 directing to recover Rs.60,022.40ps from the Petitioner and disciplinary action has been proposed.
g) Petitioner made a representation to the Additional Director General, CRPF, South Zone, Hyderabad on 04.08.2015 requesting to drop the charges against the petitioner. The representation has been forwarded through Inspector General of Police, SS, CRPF, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on 06.08.2015.
h) The Petitioner on 11.08.2015 had requested, through an application under Right to Information, 2005 to furnish the documents in connection with court of Inquiry including COI report to IGP, SS, CRPF, and ADG, South Zone and the same has been rejected stating that the RTI Act under section 24(1) restricted the access of any information and informed petitioner that there was no corruption in his case.
i) Further, petitioner was informed by the office of ADGP that the required document of COI based on which the final report is ordered is confidential in nature and its communication would impede the process of investigation and was denied the reasonable opportunity.
j) While the investigation was still pending, the final order to recover the amount and initiation of departmental action is against fair play and in violation of natural justice and is also discriminatory as no departmental action was ordered against the other officers.
k) Petitioner made a representation dated 04.08.2015 and the same has been mechanically rejecte
The disciplinary action under CISF Rules, 2001 was unwarranted as the NGF was not a statutory duty, and the initiation of proceedings was belated. The denial of relevant documents and reliance on the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision-making process adopted by the respondents must comply with the principles of natural justice and the statutory mandate of Section....
Natural justice mandates that no recovery from an employee's salary should occur without notice and a fair hearing, particularly when assessing responsibility for misappropriation or theft.
The court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness and the requirement of a factual basis for disciplinary actions, particularly when exonerating evidence exists.
The tribunal upheld the recovery orders against an employee for alleged misconduct, affirming the authority to impose penalties under administrative control and determining adequate opportunity for d....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice in administrative inquiries, quashing the recovery order due to jurisdictional flaws.
Removal from office without substantiated allegations and fair hearing violates due process rights.
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.