IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the termination of the appellant's contract for negligence in misappropriating funds, affirming that proper procedures were followed and the appellant's admission of misconduct negated his defenses.

JUDGMENT :

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)

Heard Sri S.Goutham, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record.

2. The order passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25421 of 2021, dated 20.04.2023, dismissing the said Writ Petition, and thereby, confirming the proceedings, dated 27.05.2020, of respondent No.1, whereby the contract agreement with the appellant was permanently terminated and he was disqualified for further employment under respondent No.3 society, as well as the consequential proceedings dated 19.08.2021 issued by respondent No.3 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, is under challenge in the present Writ Appeal.

3. The facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are that on issuance of notification for the post of Project Officer, the appellant responded to the same and that pursuant to the selection made by the Selection Committee constituted by respondent No.4, the appellant was appointed as Project Officer in PMKSY, Water Development Centre, Nalgonda, on contract basis, vide proceedings issued by respondent No.4, dated 09.08.2011. While so, on publication of a news article in ‘Andhra Jyothi’ Telugu daily newspaper regarding diversion of PMKSY funds to the account of a private person and also on the representation made by the State President of RTI Act alleging that the appellant has misappropriated the said funds, respondent No.2 appointed one Sangeeta Lakshmi, District Horticulture and Sericulture Officer, Nalgonda, as Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer, after completion of enquiry, submitted a report, dated 15.02.2020, holding that due to negligence of the appellant, Watershed Development Fund (WDF) amount to a tune of Rs.10.72 lakhs was diverted into the account of an unauthorized person by name Azmeera Rambabu. Later, a charge memo dated 19.03.2020 was issued to the appellant and he was placed under suspension on the even date. The Disciplinary authority-respondent No.1, based on the enquiry report, and as the explanation submitted by the appellant was not convincing, passed orders dated 27.05.2020 terminating the contract agreement of the appellant and disqualifying him for further employment under the society in any cadre. On appeal against the said order by the appellant, respondent No.3 vide order dated 19.08.2021 dismissed the said appeal. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said orders before learned single Judge of this Court, vide Writ Petition No.25421 of 2021. Hence, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that as per Rule 6.3 of the Disciplinary Rules for FTE’s of SRDS, respondent No.3 is the competent authority to pass orders of termination, whereas in the instant case, respondent No.1 without having any jurisdiction, passed the order terminating the contract agreement of the appellant and disqualified him for further employment under the society in any cadre. He further contended that the learned single Judge has failed to consider the said Rule in a proper perspective and erred in confirming the order passed by respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that there was any negligence on the part of the appellant in misappropriation of funds, as the same falls under the ambit of minor penalty, the learned single Judge ought to have set aside the impugned orders therein. He further contended that without involvement of Computer Operator, no FTOs can be generated and as such, the appellant alone cannot be held responsible for misappropriation of funds, but, the learned single Judge failed to consider the said aspect and passed the impugned order confirming the termination orders passed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader