Allowed

J.Ruksana Parveen, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Sept 2021WP/13951/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition challenging a service termination order for quashing it as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to natural justice due to a speaking order failure. Directed the respondents to conduct a de novo enquiry within two months and reinstate the petitioner provisionally. (WRIT PETITION)

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of termination dated 18.02.2020 is set aside. Petitioner is to be treated as under suspension and paid subsistence allowance. Respondents directed to conduct de novo enquiry within

J.Ruksana Parveen, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WP.No.13951 of 2020

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kranthi Sri Vaka appearing for the contesting respondents.

¶5

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶6

“To issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order RC.No.1521/A3/KGBV/2013 dated 18.02.2020 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and further direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in to service as Special Officer, KGBV, Nandavaram with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary....”

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the order passed by this Court in WP.No.10887 of 2019, no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner and the enquiry was concluded in haste. He points out that to the Three Man Committee report, a detailed explanation dated 15.10.2019 was given. Learned counsel points out by reading various paras that specific defences were raised regarding the allegations/findings contained in the Three Man Committee report. Apart from that in para 2, it is also clearly stated by the petitioner that before an enquiry has to commence, there should be a clear and cogent charge memo where clear charges should be framed so that the petitioner would be aware of the allegations made against him and give a proper

¶8

¶9

explanation. Learned counsel also points out that the Enquiry Committee also did not call for an explanation from the petitioner nor was she asked to participate in the Three Man Enquiry Committee deliberations. A reading of the impugned order as per the learned counsel shows that the reply was not even considered and in fact he says there are no cogent reasons at all for terminating the petitioner. Therefore, he prays this is a fit case to set aside the order passed and to reinstate the petitioner into service.

¶10

In reply to this, learned counsel Kranthi Sri Vaka appears and relies upon counter affidavit filed and argues in line thereof. It is also pointed out that the petitioner personally appeared in the enquiry that was conducted on 08.04.2019 and she has also submitted a letter stating that all the staff take fruits and eggs etc. Therefore, it is submitted that apart from a show cause notice and inviting objection, an opportunity was also given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. Hence, learned counsel submits that the rules of natural justice were followed and there is no infirmity in the order.

¶11

As far as the explanation submitted by the respondent is concerned, this Court has to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that what is mentioned therein is a fairly detailed answer to the Three Member Committee report dated 22.04.2019. In para 2, it is clearly specified that a charge memo was not issued with detailed charges. In para 5, it is

¶12

¶13

urged that there have been shortages in March, 2018 for a period when the petitioner was not working at that particular place. Similarly, in the other succeeding paras also, various issues were raised.

¶14

In the opinion of this Court, the truth or otherwise of the contents of the reply should have been examined by the Enquiry Officer before he came to any conclusion. The law mandates that there should be reasons for an order. Reasons would provide a link between the conclusions and the facts. In the case on hand, this Court after examining the impugned order does not find any reasons as required under law for coming to the conclusions. In the 2^nd page of the order, the Project Co-ordinator, who is enquiring into the matter, came to the conclusion that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is „not‟ convincing. Apart from that, he also refers to the note orders of the District Collector and Chairman of the A.P.Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Kurnool to terminate the services of the petitioner. This order is apparently passed before the impugned order was passed since it is referred to the impugned order.

¶15

Therefore, this Court notices that the Enquiry Officer essentially relied upon the note orders issued by the Collector and then passed the impugned orders. Independent application of mind to the issues involved is not apparent.

¶16

¶17

Time and again, this Court and highest Courts of the land held that before any order which has civil consequences and also a stigma are passed, the petitioners should put on notice, an enquiry must be held, objections must be considered and thereafter a speaking order must be passed.

¶18

In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order fails in all the above mentioned reasons. There is no discussion of the petitioner‟s explanation. There are no visible and clear reasons. The reference to the note order clearly implies that the Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind and relied upon matters which are not a part of the enquiry. This Court also holds that the very fact that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Member on 18.04.2019 does not lead an inescapable conclusion that he had given the opportunity to participate. The Three Man Committee gave its report and a detailed explanation was given running into a few pages. This was not considered in its proper perspective.

¶19

Therefore, this Court has to hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order as prayed for. The impugned order dated 18.02.2020 is set aside.

¶20

The petitioner shall be treated as being under suspension from 18.02.2020 and be paid the subsistence allowance that she is entitled to as per rules. The respondents are given the liberty to conduct a de novo enquiry from the stage of receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. The

¶21

¶22

Enquiry Officer shall consider the issues raised in the reply, hold an enquiry as required under law and pass a speaking order containing reasons. This entire process should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate in the conclusion of the enquiry and not to seek adjournments.

¶23

With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶24

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

¶25

Date: 06.09.2021 KLP

J.Ruksana Parveen, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Ruksana Parveen, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janam Nagaraju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.S. Prakash Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Omkaram Subhashini, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. M. Satyanarayana Raju, Vs National Medical Commission of India

Simma Yugandhar Vs The District Collector Srikakulam (Apcos)

Ch.Srinivasa Reddy Vs Sri.K.S.Rama Rao