2023 Supreme(Telangana) 645

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
P. Sudhakar Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The Board of Directors, Rep. by its Chairman and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 3230 of 2019
Decided On : 30-10-2023

An order of dismissal or removal from service can only be passed when an employee is in service. If a person is not in employment, the question of terminating his services ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a specific rule in that behalf.

Headnote:

DISCIPLINARY ACTION - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - POST-RETIREMENT - JURISDICTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - ENQUIRY - FAIR ENQUIRY - RIGHT TO DEFEND - DOCUMENTS - WITNESSES - EXAMINATION - AUTHORITY - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - POWERS - JURISDICTION - TERMINAL BENEFITS - WITHHOLDING - LEGALITY - PENSION - GRATUITY - LEAVE ENCASHMENT - SERVICE BENEFITS - ENTITLEMENT - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES - SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE - PAYMENT.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Seed Officer in the A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Limited (currently known as Telangana State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.), was issued a charge memo and suspended from service in 2012 due to alleged financial irregularities and manipulations in sales accounts. An enquiry was conducted, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service in 2016, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in 2018. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the proceedings were vitiated due to a lack of fair enquiry, violation of natural justice principles, and the absence of jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to impose the penalty after his retirement.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the charge memo and revised charge memo issued against the petitioner were prejudicial and predetermined, arriving at a unilateral conclusion of guilt without conducting a proper enquiry. The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed the punishment of dismissal from service after the petitioner's superannuation. The Court also found that the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind independently and simply followed the Government's directions to reject the petitioner's appeal. The Court concluded that the impugned orders were illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.

Issues: 1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority had the jurisdiction to impose the penalty of dismissal from service after the petitioner's retirement? 2. Whether the enquiry proceedings were vitiated due to a lack of fair enquiry and violation of natural justice principles? 3. Whether the Appellate Authority applied its mind independently in rejecting the petitioner's appeal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the Respondent Corporation had come to an end on the date of his retirement, and the Departmental enquiry initiated against him before retirement could only be continued for a limited purpose to decide on his entitlement to full pensionary benefits and gratuity. The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, UCO Bank vs. Rajender Shankar Shukla, and UCO Bank and Others vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, which held that an order of dismissal or removal from service can only be passed when an employee is in service. 2. The Court held that the charge memo and revised charge memo issued against the petitioner were prejudicial and predetermined, arriving at a unilateral conclusion of guilt without conducting a proper enquiry. The Court also found that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to examine crucial witnesses and submit additional written statements of defense, violating the principles of natural justice. 3. The Court held that the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind independently and simply followed the Government's directions to reject the petitioner's appeal. The Court found that the order of the Appellate Authority was cryptic and did not assign any reasons for rejecting the appeal.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders of dismissal from service. The Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the balance of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and withheld amounts of service benefits, including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits, along with legal interest.