Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Masthan Valli, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 December, 2024
APHC010408652024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331]
TUESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 20834/2024
Between:
1. SHAIK MASTHAN VALLI,, S/O. LATE S. MASTAN SAHAB, AGED 57
YEARS, OCC SECONDARY GRADE TEACHER (UNDER ORDER OF
DISMISSAL), R/O. D.NO.15/324-1, HABIBULLA STREET, NEAR
SHARADA NILAYAM SCHOOL, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, A.P.
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI
2. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA
3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,
KADAPA
4. THE ZILLA PARISHAD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing major punishment of removal from service of the Petitioner from the Page 2 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.20834 of 2024 post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) by Proceedings in Rc.No.665/A1/202 0 dated 29- 08-2024 of the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unconstitutional and also in violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, contrary to provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Proceedings in Rc.No.665/A1/2020 dated 29-08- 2024 of the 3rd Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES III
2. B V APARNA LAKSHMI The Court made the following ORDER:
Impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.665/A1/2020 dated 29.08.2024, whereby the petitioner was removed from services, the above writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Smt. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramalingeswar Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services- II, for the respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant, by respondent No.4 vide proceedings in Rc.No.C5/1872/95 dated 14.01.1997 (Ex.P11). The petitioner, as seen from the material filed along with writ affidavit and the counter affidavit as well as original record, failed to attend the school on two spells i.e. from 27.11.2019 to 01.12.2019 and thereafter from 21.07.2020 to 20.11.2020. The petitioner submitted joining report on Page 3 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.20834 of 2024 23.06.2020 for the leave availed from 27.11.2019 to 01.12.2019 and the Mandal Educational Officer, Khajipet Mandal forwarded the same to respondent No.3 under Ex.P10.
4. After availing leave from 21.07.2020 to 20.11.2020 (as per averment in the writ affidavit) (as per Ex.P8, absent till 15.06.2021), the petitioner submitted joining report on 16.06.2021 under Ex.P8 requesting the authority to grant leave from 21.07.2020 to 15.06.2021. Since, the petitioner did not receive reposting orders, he made another representation dated 28.12.2022, requesting respondent No.3 to issue reposting orders. Both the representations i.e. Exs.P7 and P8 contain the seal of office of respondent No.3. Pursuant to the representations, respondent No.3 by proceedings in Rc.No.665/A1/2020 dated 26.02.2023 (Ex.P6), directed the Mandal Educational Officer, Kazipet Mandal, to admit the petitioner and submit his date of joining to its Office. Accordingly, the petitioner joined duty.
5. Be that as it may, a charge memo, vide Rc.No.665/A1/2020 dated 10.03.2023 (Ex.P5) was issued to the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 11.08.2023 (Ex.P4). Thereafter, a show cause notice vide Rc.No.665/A1/2020 dated 23.12.2023 (Ex.P3) was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation, as to why punishment, removing him from service, should not be imposed. The petitioner also submitted an explanation dated 04.01.2024 (Ex.P2). Thereafter, by proceedings impugned, the petitioner was removed from service.
6. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments at para No.4 of the writ affidavit and submitted that the respondents failed to follow the procedure mandated under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules').
Page 4 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.20834 of 20247. In the counter affidavit, the authority has not adverted to averment in the writ affidavit regarding failure of adhering to the procedure mandated under Rule 20 of the Rules.
8. A perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Authority to the Disciplinary Authority under Ex.P13 would disclose that the Inquiry Officer conducted a discrete inquiry on 14.11.2023. Conducting a discrete inquiry is not in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules and it is also not known to the service jurisprudence.
9. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner was informed about the appointment of the Inquiry Officer nor requisite papers were furnished to him, etc., this Court is not going into those aspects, in view of the fact that respondents failed to adhere to the procedure mandated under Rule 20 of the Rules.
10. Since the procedure mandated under Rule 20 of the Rules was not adhered to, on the said ground alone, the inquiry report (Ex.P13) and the subsequent removal order (Ex.P1), are liable to be set aside.
11. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the removal order was set aside the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement.
12. In Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A. Masilamani1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same."1
(2013) 6 SCC 530 Page 5 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.20834 of 2024
13. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The inquiry report vide Lr.RC.No.Spl/Enq/2023, dated 20.11.2023 (Ex.P13) and the removal proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.665/A1/2020 dated 29.08.2024 (Ex.P1), are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the authority to conduct inquiry afresh by following the procedure under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules, 1996. Since a charge memo was issued to the petitioner under Ex.P5, the authority shall follow the procedure mandated under Rule 20 of the Rules and pass appropriate orders and complete the inquiry.
This exercise shall be completed within four months from the receipt of a copy of this order.
It is out of place to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to take all the pleas.
The original record is returned to the learned Government Pleader for Services. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 03.12.2024 IKN Page 6 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.20834 of 2024 257 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20834 / 2024 Date: 03.12.2024 IKN