Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1231
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, JJ.
Smt. M. Jayasri - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Khammam and others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.31787 of 2014
Decided On : 12-08-2024
For the Petitioner: W.B. Srinivas, K. Kavya Sree Lalitha
For the Respondents: Bathula Raj Kiran
Disciplinary actions must be substantiated with credible evidence, and prior judicial findings cannot be misinterpreted to unjustly terminate employment on compassionate grounds.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - The case raised issues on the legality of a compassionate appointment based on the petitioner’s claim to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Balaji. Decree in O.S. No. 1108 of 1999 held that petitioner was not legally married, leading to termination of service for alleged misconduct. However, prior inquiries confirmed the marriage’s genuineness, citing that no directive in the decree pertained to employment status. (Paras 8, 16, 28)
(B) Natural Justice - Disciplinary Actions must be based on accurate findings and must not deviate from established legal principles or misapply judgments out of context. The employee’s right to fair procedure must be ensured. (Paras 22-27)
(C) Judicial Misconduct - Disciplinary authorities cannot arbitrarily frame charges of misconduct. Charges must be well-defined and supported by credible evidence. (Paras 25-28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus against the termination of her service as it arose from a declaration of her status made in a civil suit regarding her marriage to the deceased. A Judicial Enquiry had declared her marriage genuine. However, she was terminated based on conflicting court findings regarding her legal status as Balaji's wife.
Findings of Court:
The court found the termination unjust due to conflicting evidence regarding marriage legitimacy and noted that the disciplinary action lacked a legal basis, ruling in favor of the petitioner, reinstating her with back wages.
Issues: Whether the decree in O.S. No. 1108 of 1999 precluded the petitioner’s valid compassionate appointment and whether the disciplinary findings against her constituted justified misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere existence of a decree unfavorable to the petitioner regarding marriage does not negate prior confirmations of her marriage’s legitimacy, nor does it justify dismissal without comprehensive scrutiny of facts.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; termination set aside.
ORDER :
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.
The present Writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“…….Issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring 1st respondent’s Proc. Order C.Dis.No.62/ADM/DCK, dated 11.08.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to evidence on record, unjust, null and void and consequently set aside the same with all consequential benefits and pass….”.
2. Heard Sri W.B. Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, representing Ms. K. Kavya Sree Lalitha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s marriage was performed with Sri MVPN Balaji on 29.04.1998 at Veerabhadra Swami Temple, Kuravi village, Warangal District and the same was an arranged marriage. Prior to the marriage of petitioner with Sri MVPN Balaji, he married one Janaki, but the said marriage was dissolved by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, in O.P.No.39 of 1997, dated 14.11.1997. The petitioner, after her marriage, started living with her husband MVPN Balaji and settled in Khammam. While so, the petitioner’s husband was transferred to Madira. While working there, the petitioner’s husband was murdered by the extremists on the intervening night of 24/25.01.1999. Later, the petitioner submitted an application to the 1st respondent for issuance of a service certificate, payment of ex-gratia amount, and to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Pursuant to the said application, the 1st respondent appointed Sri P. Gureppa, Junior Civil Judge, Madhira, to enquire into the matter with regard to genuineness of petitioner’s marriage with the deceased Balaji.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, Junior Civil Judge, Madhira, submitted a detailed enquiry report on 28.10.1999. During the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer examined the petitioner, her parents, respondent No.3 and the deceased’s father, and respondent No.3 filed written arguments denying all the exhibits filed by the petitioner. A finding in the said enquiry report is:
“It clearly made out that those are marriage photos between Balaji and Janaki and the documents Ex.P1 to P3, P5, P7 to P13 show that marriage was performed between the petitioner herein and the deceased Balaji.”
A perusal of the enquiry report further reveals that, after examining respondent No.3 and her husband, the Enquiry Officer observed that Balaji resided separately at Khammam after marriage with his first wife, Janaki, and after divorce also, the deceased Balaji resided separately and attended his duties. The Enquiry Officer also held that the contents of Ex.P5 filed therein (Ex.P7) are relevant. The deceased Balaji categorically stated that he married the present petitioner, Jayasree. Finally, the Enquiry Officer held that the marriage between the petitioner, Smt. Jayasree and Sri Balaji is genuine.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after declaring the genuineness of the marriage of the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued proceedings in Dis.No.6948/PR No.68/99/ADM/DCK, dated 21.12.1999 appointing the petitioner as Process Server on compassionate ground and posted her at Munsif Magistrate’s Court at Madhira. As such, the petitioner joined the duty. While she was working as Process Server in Madhira, the 3rd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner to the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of her son, Balaji and that her son Balaji has not married for the second time after divorcing his first wife, Janaki. Subsequently, while the complaint was pending, the 3rd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1108 of 1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Khammam, for a declaration that she is the sole heir of the deceased Sri Balaji and for a consequential injunctio
