Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Satti Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 September, 2020
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
WRIT PETITION No.17760 OF 2020
O R D E R:
This writ petition has been filed against the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in C.No.4939/H1/214, dated 16.03.2017 and consequential memo issued in RC.No.137/HGs-Esst/2017-2, dated 06.02.2020 of the 2nd respondent.
2) Heard Sri A. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.
3) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into the service of the Home Guards Organization vide proceedings of the 4th respondent, dated 21.06.2012 in DO No.697/2012, C.No.303/H1/2012 and his service was regularized as driver and he is discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the superiors without any complaints. He further contends that the 4th respondent issued show-cause notice in C.No.4939/H1/2014, dated 08.01.2015 calling for the explanation of the petitioner alleging that while he was discharging duties as driver of III Town Police Station (Beat Mobile) absented from duties from 01.11.2014 onwards without permission from the superiors and not responding to the memos and further alleging that one B. Narsinga Rao gave complaint against the petitioner that the petitioner married his daughter Kumari on 08.06.2014 with dowry and she left her house and committed suicide by hanging for which a Crime No.179/2014 registered under Section 304(B) 2 and 498(A) of IPC and also under Dowry and Prohibition Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 20.02.2015. After receipt of the explanation, no enquiry has been conducted and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for hearing or to produce any evidence to substantiate his case, passed orders, dated 16.03.2017 removing the petitioner from the roles of Home Guards Organization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by filing O.A.No.1345/17 and the said O.A. was dismissed, since, it is a matter to be considered and dealt with by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the said appeal was rejected by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in RC.No.137/HGs-Estt/2017-2, dated 06.02.2020.
4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent passed order, dated 16.03.2017 removing the petitioner from the service without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 20.02.2015 and without considering the representations submitted by him in which it was brought to their notice that the criminal case registered against the petitioner was dismissed on 08.08.2016 and the petitioner was acquitted honourably from the concerned Sessions Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously took objection for the memo, dated 06.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent contending that without giving opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing and simply basing on the report of the 4th respondent who passed the original 3 removal order and without assigning any reasons for rejecting the appeal which is nothing but contrary to settled law and against to the principles of natural justice.
5) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents strongly supported the orders passed by the respondents 4 and 2. With the consent of both counsel, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
6) Having heard the submission of the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, it appears that the 2nd respondent memo, dated 06.02.2020 was issued rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent. It appears no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case before the appellate authority and it also to be noted that no reasons were recorded by the 2nd respondent while disposing the appeal. It is settled law that the appellate authority has to dispose of the appeal after giving opportunity for personal hearing to the appellant therein and it is the duty of the appellate authority to assign reasons by passing speaking order while disposing the appeal. It is also the settled proposition of law that the appellate authority has to apply its mind independently without influenced by the findings given by the original authority. But in the present case, it clearly appears that the 2nd respondent simply basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent rejected the appeal of the petitioner, which is not permissible under law.
4
7) In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the memo in RC.No.137/HGs-Estt/2017-2, dated 06.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside and matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. The 2nd respondent shall dispose of the appeal afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing and pass appropriate reasoned order by following due process of law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8) There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed in consequence.
_____________________ BATTU DEVANAND, J Dt. 30.09.2020 PGR