Telangana High Court
Immadi Ramakrishna vs State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 8 June, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.676 of 2023
ORDER:
1. Heard Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondent No.1 to 4, and Sri P.Kishore Rao, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 to 6.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the year 2005 in the office of the respondent No.6. After formation of the Telangana State, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 14.10.2019 and the said post was re-designated as Multi-Purpose Worker (for brevity MPW) and the petitioner has been discharging duties such as sanitation, electricity bulb connection and other duties such as tractor driver for 2 SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023 watering for the purpose of greenery. While it being so, the father of the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.28422 of 2021 seeking a direction against the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein in not removing the encroachments made by the unofficial respondents therein. This Court granted interim directions on 06.11.2021. The respondent No.6 bore-grudge against petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was instrumental for filing the cases and subsequent representations of father of the petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duties without issuing any notice and without assigning any reasons from November, 2022 onwards. After repeated representations the respondent Nos.6 and 7 have furnished copy of resolution dated 04.01.2023, which is said to have been passed on 15.10.2022, wherein the services of the 3 SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023 petitioner were terminated without assigning any reasons. The respondents have furnished copy of Agenda dated 12.10.2022 and there was no item in the said agenda pertaining to termination of services of the petitioner. As per the Agenda dated 12.10.2022 and the resolution dated 15.10.2022, out of 14 Members of respondent No.6-Gram Panchayath, only five Members have signed and the respondent No.6 has no jurisdiction to terminate the services of the petitioner. Moreover, the respondent No.6 did not assign any reasons for the alleged termination of services. The petitioner has been discharging his services for the past 17 years and the action of the respondent No.6 suffers from mala fide intention.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the policy of the Government, the Gram Panchayath cannot remove temporary employees, unless obtained any orders from the 4 SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023 competent District Panchayath Officer and without following any procedure now the respondent No.6 passed the resolution against the petitioner and the same is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and requested to allow the writ petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relied on the following judgement:
1. Bejjam Ramesh Babu Vs. Society for Elimination of 1 Rural Poverty, Hyderabad and others
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 basing on the counter submits that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent No.6 on temporary basis and after formation of Telangana State, the State Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.51, Panchayath Raj and Rural Development Department dated 14.10.2019 framing certain guidelines for appointment and engaging of Sanitary-
1 2014 (3) ALD 253 5 SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023 cum-Multipurpose workers in Gram Panchayath employees working in Gram Panchayath on Part-Time, Full Time, Contract and Outsourcing basis, @ Rs.8,500/- per month and the petitioner is working as a Multi Purpose Worker (MPW) in the office of Gram Panchayath, Muddanuru, on contract basis in terms of G.O.Ms.No.51, PR & RD Department, dated 14.10.2019.
7. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner started misleading and misappropriating the gram panchayath funds by utilizing for his personal use and committed irregularities by manipulating by issuing fraudulent receipts. In view of the same, the respondent No.6 issued notice to the petitioner on 30.12.2021 in Memo RC No.17/2021 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.12.2021 admitting his mischief and the commission of irregularities. In view of the 6 SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023 irregularities committed by the petitioner, the governing body of the respondent No.6 has discussed the same in its general body meeting and passed unanimous resolution on 15.10.2022 for removal of the petitioner from service since he is a contract employee.
8. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the irregularities committed by the petitioner has become multiplicity of litigation in the village and causing severe damage to the administration of the Gram Panchayath and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
9. After hearing both sides and after perusing the material on records this Court is of the considered view that admittedly the petitioner was working in the respondent No.6 Gram Panchayath since 2005 and 7 SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023 now the post of the petitioner was re-designated as Multi Purpose Worker (MPW) as per G.O.Ms.No.51, PR & RD Department dated 14.10.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.6 is not allowing him to discharge his duties from November, 2022 onwards without issuing any notice or without assigning any reasons. The petitioner filed copy of resolution passed by the respondent No.6, dated 15.10.2022. In the said resolution it is mentioned only that " it is decided to remove the services of Immadi Ramakrishna S/o. Lalalaih, working as MPW in Muddunuru Gram Panchayath", but no reasons were mentioned in the resolution for termination of the services of the petitioner.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that in the Agenda circulated by the respondent No.6 to the Members, there is no mention about the issue of removal of the petitioner. 8
SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023 Moreover, out of 14 members, only five members have signed in the said resolution. Further as per the counter filed by the respondent No.6, the petitioner is working as Multi-Purpose Worker on Contract Basis. The respondent No.6 without issuing any notice to the petitioner with regard to termination of his services, not permitting him to discharge his duties as MPW.
11. This court time and again held that in case of termination of contract employees on disciplinary grounds, is entitled for regular departmental proceeding as the same is stigma of his future. The judgment riled on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Bejjam Ramesh Babu vs. Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (supra) squarely apply to the instant case, as the respondents without conducting any enquiry resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner.
9
SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023
12. The respondents without assigning any reasons removed the services of the petitioner and by way of counter in this writ petition making allegations against the petitioner and the same is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.S.Gill Vs. Election Commission of India 2. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out".
13. Further, without passing any orders on the explanation dated 31.12.2021 submitted by the petitioner in response to the Memo RC No.17/2021 dated 30.12.2021, ten months thereafter the petitioner 2 1978 SCR (3) 272 10 SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023 was terminated from service basing on the resolution dated 15.10.2022.
14. The above circumstances clearly shows that the respondent No.6 without following any procedure and without assigning any reasons passed the resolution on 15.10.2022 and the same is arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
15. In view of the same, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the resolution dated 15.10.2022 passed by the respondent No.6 in so far as the removal of the petitioner from service is concerned and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith.
16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11
SK,J W.P.No.676 of 2023
17. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 08.06.2023 trr