Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
A. Laxminarayana – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector (BCW), Karimnagar and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2753 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2020
Disciplinary Authority - Hostel Welfare Officer - Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 20, Rule 21, Rule 37, Rule 38, Rule 40, Rule 41 - The court discussed the disciplinary proceedings against a Hostel Welfare Officer and the violations of the CCA Rules 1991. It highlighted the powers of the disciplinary authority, the role of the government in disciplinary actions, and the limitations on the authority's discretion. The court emphasized the illegalities in the disciplinary process and the violation of the employee's rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Hostel Welfare Officer, challenged the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect imposed by the District Collector. The disciplinary action stemmed from a surprise check conducted by ACB officials at the hostel where the petitioner worked, resulting in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of the punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority's actions were influenced by the government's directions, leading to illegalities in the disciplinary process. It noted the delay in disposing of the petitioner's appeal and the imposition of a major punishment without following due procedure. The court also highlighted the impact of the punishment on the petitioner's pension and the lack of independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority.
Issues: The issues included the legality of initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings on the same incident, the mandatory requirement of holding an enquiry before imposing a major punishment, the failure to consider the petitioner's explanation, and the undue influence of the government on the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority's actions, influenced by the government's directions, were illegal and violated the petitioner's rights. It emphasized the need for independent application of mind, the mandatory nature of holding an enquiry before imposing major punishment, and the impact of delay on the petitioner's right to seek redress.
Final Decision: The court set aside the punishment order and allowed the writ petition, granting the petitioner the notional fixation of annual increments withheld, but not entitled to arrears of amounts on restoration of annual increments. The court also clarified that the petitioner was not entitled to claim retrospective promotion even if a junior to him was granted promotion.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is working as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II. In this writ petition he is challenging the order dated 29.09.2013 imposing the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
3. The facts on record would disclose that on 10/11.09.2003 the ACB officials conducted surprise check in the BC Boys Hostel, Karimnagar, where petitioner was working as Hostel Welfare Officer. By proceedings dated 27.11.2003, Charge Memo was drawn containing three charges and petitioner was also placed under suspension by the same proceedings. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide letter dated 27.08.2004 holding the Charges as not proved.
4. The Enquiry record of the petitioner was placed before the Government. The Government examined the Disciplinary case of the petitioner and it was not satisfied with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, by Memo dated 25.08.2006, the Government directed the District Collector to exercise power under Rule 21 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the CCA Rules 1991’) indicated the reasons to be incorporated in the disagreement note, punishment that is required to be imposed and also directed to send the report on the action taken to the Government. Consequently, on 03.11.2006, show cause notice was issued incorporating the disagreement note and the punishment that was proposed to be imposed as suggested by the Government. On 20.11.2006, petitioner submitted his explanation. According to the petitioner, there is no further progress on the above aspect.
5. While so, on 14.02.2007, a fresh Charge Memo was drawn with reference to the very same incident. On 19.02.2007, petitioner submitted representation denying the charges leveled against him and also requested to supply the photocopies of item wise details and date/month wise details, wherein alleged irregularities were committed and alleged loss caused to the Government. He also submitted reminder on 24.02.2007 requesting to supply the documents. On 29.09.2013, the District Collector, passed orders imposing punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.
6. On 30.09.2013, petitioner claims to have submitted appeal to the Government. A copy of the appeal is filed as Ex.P.12. In the first page of the appeal there is stamp of the Office of the Principal Secretary acknowledging the receipt of said appeal. Alleging inaction in disposing of the appeal and aggrieved by the punishment imposed, this writ petition is filed.
7. From the above narration of facts, the following crucial facts can be culled out. Consequent to the raid conducted by ACB on 10/11.09.2003, disciplinary action was initiated. In the Charge Memo dated 27.11.2003, Charge No. 2 deals with variation in the food provisions and Charge No. 3 deals with shortfall in actual strength of the boarders in the hostel. It is alleged that as against strength shown as 179, only 100 boarders were found present. For all the three charges, the basis is the report dated 11.09.2003 of the ACB. In the report of Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer notices that the stock register and attendance register were verified by the District BC Welfare Officer and reported to the Director of BC Welfare on 13.01.2003 holding that no variations were found. He held all the charges as not proved. Particularly he found that there was no illegality in the stock of food provisions. With reference to shortfall of strength, he recorded that absence of 79 boarders was on account of festival of lord Ganesha and immersion on 09.09.2003 preceded by second Saturday and Sunday and held the Charge as not proved.
8. The CCA Rules clearly delineate the powers of hierarchy of authorities and their jurisdiction. It has c
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
