Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K.M.L.N. Mohana Rao vs Apseb Hyderabad on 13 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALD69
Author: Goda Raghuram
Bench: Goda Raghuram
ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed initially assailing the orders of the respondents placing the petitioner under suspension dated 30-6-1992. Disciplinary proceedings have taken place, show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation thereto. Final orders have been issued by proceedings dated 11-11-1996 visiting the petitioner with the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. By way of amendment to the pleadings and the relief, the order of compulsory retirement dated 11-11-1996 has also been impugned and relief sought for its invalidation.
2. An in depth analysis of the disciplinary proceedings and a scrutiny as to the vitality of the proceedings is not warranted in this writ petition in view of the shorter question on the basis of which the issue could be disposed of.
3. It is the admitted position on the basis of the pleadings and the submissions made at the bar that the Enquiry Officer found charge Nos.l and 2 not established and that the petitioner was guilty of charge No.3. The disciplinary authority on a consideration of the enquiry report came to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge Nos.l and 2 were inconsistent with his own analysis of the record and consequently he found the petitioner guilty of charge Nos.l and 2 also and issued a show-cause notice in November, 1994 proposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner submitted his explanation and the impugned final order dated It-11-1996 was issued visiting the petitioner with a penalty of compulsory retirement on the basis of adverse findings on charge Nos.l, 2 and 3. The law in respect of this area of disciplinary proceedings is no longer res Integra. The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra and others, , declared that in a situation where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer, principles of natural justice which are an emanation of the constitutional injunctions to equality under Articles 14 and 16 warrant issuance of a notice to the delinquent Officer seeking his comments before the disciplinary authority comes to a conclusion at variance with that of the Enquiry Officer. On the application of this principle, the primafacie conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority before the issuance of the show-cause notice dated, 19-11-1994 to the petitioner and the decision of the disciplinary authority dated 11-11-1996 visiting the petitioner with the penalty of compulsory retirement are vitiated by non-observance of the audi alteretn partem rule. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 11-11-1994 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner would stand invalidated. It is no doubt, true that where an administrative or quasi judicial conclusion is based on more than one reasons and one of the reasons is not valid, such a decision could be supported and upheld on the basis of the valid reasons vide State of Orissa v, Bidya Bhushan Mahapatra and others, , State of Maharashtra v. B.K. Takkamore and others, . In the case on hand, however, the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority in respect of charge Nos.l and 2 is invalid on account of non-compliance with the natural justice principle. Therefore, the penalty of dismissal can only be valid on the basis of charge No.3. A substantive portion of the satisfaction being invalid, it is unsafe for this Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the disciplinary authority would rationally have come to the same conclusion on the basis of charge No.3 alone. Secondly, the doctrine of proportionality -would also be involved. Consequently, the satisfaction whether the penalty of compulsory retirement would be the appropriate penalty only on the basis of charge No.3, is a satisfaction that normally and classically vests in the disciplinary authority and cannot be usurped by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, it is appropriate that the whole question be relegated to the disciplinary authority for its consideration.
4. In the premises, the impugned order dated 11-11-1996 is set aside and the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board is directed to proceed from the stage of consideration of the enquiry report dated 16-6-1993. On such consideration, if the Board which is the disciplinary authority, is of the view that the Enquiry Officer's findings and recommendations in respect of charge Nos.l and 2 required to be modified and conclusion arrived at, the Board shall proceed to issue a notice of such intention to the petitioner, obtain his objections thereto and thereupon come to its independent conclusions in respect of the charges and proceed in the matter of determining the appropriate quantum of penalty that would be warranted on such findings.
5. Having regard to the fact that by the impugned orders, compulsory retirement has been imposed on the petitioner and having further regard to the fact that this Court is not directing reinstatement of the petitioner consequent upon invalidation of the impugned proceedings by this judgment, the respondent Board would be obligated either to reinstate the petitioner to service or to pay him the pensionary/terminal benefits consequent upon the orders of compulsory retirement contained in the proceedings dated 11-11-1996 as an interim measure pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings as directed above. The APSE Board will finalise the disciplinary proceedings within the parameters directed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment of this Court and shall take a decision either to reinstate the petitioner to service or pay him his pensionary benefits within a period of 30 days from today.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.