Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V. Poornachandra Rao vs Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State ... on 8 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(2)ALT432
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. The petitioner seeks Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the service issued by the first respondent in Memo No. DP/DM. / V. /S. II/231 -Q2/90-1, dated 7-8-1991 as confirmed by the second respondent in Memo No. DP/DM. V/231-02/90-5, dated 7-12-1991 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits.
2. The petitioner was working as Additional Assistant Engineer, Hydrogen Gas Plant, Kothagudem Thermal Station, Paloncha for several years. While so, an enquiry through proceeding dated 27-8-1989 was initiated against the petitioner alleging filling up of Oxygen Cylinders belonging to the third parties.
3. The Enquiry Officer while holding enquiry held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, and, the report of the Enquiry Officer was placed before the disciplinary authority. However, the Disciplinary Authority differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and found the petitioner to be guilty of intentional filling up of five Oxygen Cylinders of private parties basing on a report of vigilance Wing of the respondents and imposed penalty of compulsory retirement through proceedings date 7-8-1991. As against the imposing of punishment by the first respondent compulsorily retiring the petitioner, the matter was carried by way of appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent by an order dated 7-12-1991 confirmed the orders of the first respondent imposing penalty of compulsory retirement.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the matter has been carried to this Court by way of the present writ Petition.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, Sri Adinarayana Rao, counsel, contended that though the enquiry Officer, on a charge being framed, enquired into the matter an gave a report holding that the charges were not proved, the first respondent deferred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on other considerations basing on a Vigilance report. It is contended that the Disciplinary Authority arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has voluntarily filled up five Oxygen Cylinders of private parties, which was based on the Vigilance report, such report was not made available to the petitioner and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, has imposed such a penalty which is against the principles of natural justice.
6. It is not disputed that the Vigilance report was not furnished to the petitioner. The punishment imposed on the basis of certain documents and if those documents were not furnished to the other party, there is no opportunity for the other party to explain his case. Therefore, it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Admittedly, as I said earlier in this case, the petitioner was not furnished the vigilance report enabling him to make out the case in defence. Therefore, an order imposing compulsory retirement under these circumstances, cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the proceeding of the first respondent as well as the second respondent are quashed. However, it is made clear, if it is so advised, the respondents are at liberty to furnish the copy of the Vigilance report and seek explanation of the petitioner. Basing on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an appropriate order could be passed.
8. Since I have held that the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case, what could be the relief the petitioner is entitled form this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has been serving the Board for several years. Still he has few more years of service to serve the Board. The order of compulsory retirement is based only on a Vigilance report which was never furnished to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the order has been set aside by this Court. Since the order has been set aside, I am of the view, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement forthwith.
9. It is pointed out by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that a direction for reinstatement cannot be ordered in view of the Regulation 11(d) of the Andhra Pradesh State electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations. For the purpose of appreciating the logic behind this argument that reinstatement cannot be directed, the Regulation 11(d) is extracted as under :
Regulation 11(d) "Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an employee of the Board is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal/removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders".
10. The provision contemplated under Regulation 11(d) makes it clear if the authorities on a consideration of the circumstance desire to hold further enquiry against a person on the allegation on which penalty of dismissal/removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension. That is to say, if a decision is taken by the appropriate authority to make further enquiry, a decision should be taken to keep a person under suspension. In this case, the order of compulsory retirement has been challenged and has been set aside by this Court. If the authorities so desire to proceed with the enquiry, it is always open to them to keep the petitioner under suspension. Till such a decision is taken by the respondents as to whether they should proceed against the petitioner and hold further enquiry, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. In view of the provision contemplated in Regulation 11(d), the objection now raised cannot be sustained.
11. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.