Dismissed

Chavvakula Rajesh, Ysr Kadapa Dist v. Gm, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2019WP/41827/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition alleging illegal punishment and removal from service. The Court held that the petitioner, a workman cadre employee, has an alternative efficacious remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, rendering the writ petition non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the writ petition and closure of pending interlocutory applications. Liberty to approach the Industrial Forum.

Chavvakula Rajesh, Ysr Kadapa Dist Vs Gm… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶3

Writ Petition No.41827 of 2016

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of fourth respondent in passing the order dated 11.11.2016 imposing punishment on petitioner removing him from service with superannuation benefits as illegal and arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to set aside the aforesaid order.

¶6

2. The case of petitioner is that the fourth respondent issued notification for appointment of Peon in Hyderabad Circle of Andhra Pradesh on 09.12.2014 and accordingly, the petitioner applied for the said post. The minimum qualification for the said post is XII Standard or equivalent from recognized Board or Institute. The petitioner was ultimately selected and posted for duties in fourth respondent Bank. While so, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 11.03.2016 on the allegation that when the minimum and maximum educational qualification required for the post of Peon as per the notification was XII standard or equivalent qualification, the petitioner who already completed B.Tech and holding degree from SSITS (Rayachoty, JNTU) suppressed the same and applied for the post. Charges were framed and enquiry was conducted and ultimately it was held that the petitioner suppressed the material facts relating to his educational qualification and secured the job and accordingly, the punishment of

¶7

¶8

removal from service was imposed on him. The petitioner’s version is that paper notification dated 09.12.2014 was issued by the Punjab National Bank, Hyderabad Circle, wherein it was mentioned that for full details the candidates can refer to www.pnbpeonrecruitmentapandtelangana2014.com. In the website regarding educational qualification it was motioned that “candidate should minimum passed 12^th or its equivalent from recognized board/institute” and following the same he was under the impression that he acquired the requisite qualification and applied for the post and got selected and therefore, he has not concealed any material facts.

¶9

Hence, the writ petition.

¶10

3. The respondents filed counter and opposed the writ petition. The contention of the respondent is dipronged. Firstly, it is contended that the petitioner is a ‘workman’ cadre employee and is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, he has to seek his remedy available under the said Act. Since an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to him under the aforesaid Act, this writ petition is not maintainable. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands inasmuch as he suppressed the material facts relating to his education and obtained job and therefore, he was rightly terminated from the service. In the paper notification, the respondent authorities have clearly mentioned about the educational qualification of the candidate to the effect that “Pass in XII standard or its equivalent with

¶11

¶12

basic reading/writing knowledge of English. Maximum and Minimum XII pass.” In that view of the mater, the petitioner who had already passed B.Tech and holding degree from SSITS (Rayachoty, JNTU) ought not to have applied for the post as he was having much higher qualification than required. Further, in his declaration dated 12.02.2015 the petitioner unequivocally gave a declaration that if it comes to the notice of the Bank that he has studied beyond Intermediate at a future date, his appointment in the Bank will be cancelled and he shall be subject to dismissal summarily from appointment as subordinate staff of Punjab National Bank besides being subjected to civil/disciplinary/criminal action by the Bank. Therefore, the petitioner is well aware that he should possess the educational qualification of XII standard and not more than that. However, he suppressed his educational qualification and got the job; for the act the authorities have conducted enquiry and removed him from service by following due process.

¶13

4. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶14

5. I gave my anxious consideration to the facts, pleadings and arguments of either side. In the considered view of this Court, the writ petition shall fail for the reason that as rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents the petitioner comes under the category of ‘workman’ as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, he can seek redressal of his

¶15

¶16

grievance before the concerned Industrial Tribunal. It is trite law that when equal and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (vide A.P. Foods v. S.Samuel¹ ) . It has been held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained when statutory remedy is available under the Act unless exceptional circumstances are made out. In the instant case, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of this case, this Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Forum for getting redressal of his grievance. No costs.

¶17

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶19

08.11.2019 MVA

¶20

1 2006 SCC (L & S) 1136

Chavvakula Rajesh, Ysr Kadapa Dist v. Gm, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chavvakula Rajesh, Ysr Kadapa Dist v. Gm, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadipudi Tirumala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Subbarayudu, Vs The Vice-Chairman 8s Managing Director

Vandrasi Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam Vs Smt. Vandrasi Radha, Visakhapatnam and Ano

Paidimaria Kamalamma Vs K Mohan Rao

Doddoju Ankatala Anuradha Vs Pola Bhaskar

Golla Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy Vs Golla Venkata Subbarao