Remanded

Smt Pedapudi Vanaja v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Oct 2019WP/1887/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the legality of disciplinary proceedings. The High Court held that the appellate authority failed to address the specific grounds raised regarding the denial of a personal hearing and non-perusal of documents, remanding the matter for consideration of these specific issues.

What did the court decide?

The matter was remanded to the second respondent to consider the grounds raised in the appeal regarding personal hearing and document perusal.

Smt Pedapudi Vanaja Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1887 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER :-

¶4

The petitioner seeks a Writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.346/2018/HR/Wing, dated 30.08.2018 on the file of third respondent as confirmed by the second respondent through L.Dis.No.346/2018/HR cell, dated 20.01.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayatraj and Rural Development representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.S. Ramachandra Murthy, learned standing counsel representing respondent No.3.

¶6

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate authority before whom the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending, did not consider the ground raised in appeal, particularly with regard to the grounds mentioned in paras 6 to 8 of the appeal, the first being that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the first respondent as required under sub-clause (4) of clause 13 of disciplinary policy as contained in proceedings No.143/SRDS/HR/Manual/2009, dated 06.04.2011. The second ground is that the first respondent did not go into the merits of the case and did not look into the documents filed by the appellant and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, under political influence. The third ground is that the first respondent though framed three charges, dropped third charge, but however,

¶7

¶8

TR, J W.P.No.1887 of 2019

¶9

imposed punishment on charge Nos.1 and 2 without any cogent evidence and material on record.

¶10

4. The order of appellate authority i.e., the second respondent does not reflect that he has met with the ground raised by the petitioner with regard to personal hearing and with regard to non-perusal of the document by the first respondent.

¶11

5. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.3 argues that the charges that are framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and there is sufficient material to prove the said charges. But this Court is not inclined to go into the aspect of the propriety of the enquiry, since the only limited question that this Court is inclined to deal with is whether personal hearing, as required under sub-clause (4) of clause 13 of disciplinary policy as contained in proceedings No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009, dated 06.04.2011, was given to the petitioner or not and whether the documents given by the petitioner, are perused and appreciated by the first respondent. Unfortunately, the order passed by the second respondent does not reflect that the said grounds were considered and dealt with.

¶12

6. Learned counsel also takes the help of Judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India¹ wherein the apex Court held that reasons must be recorded, except in cases where requirement is dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication. In the above circumstances, it is deemed fit to remand the matter to

¶13

1 AIR 1990 SC 1984

¶14

¶15

TR, J W.P.No.1887 of 2019

¶16

the second respondent to consider the grounds raised in the appeal in para Nos.6 to 8 and pass orders afresh on the said grounds.

¶17

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be

¶18

no order as to costs.

¶19