Allowed

Simma Yugandhar v. The District Collector Srikakulam (Apcos)

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Sept 2021WP/14665/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order removing the petitioner from service without considering his reply. The High Court found a gross failure of natural justice and a lack of enquiry report, setting aside the termination order and directing a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of removal is set aside; the enquiry process is to be completed within one month from the date of receipt of the order copy.

Simma Yugandhar Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.14665 of 2021

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶6

It is clarified in the order dated 23.8.2021 that if counter is not filed, the matter will be heard. Accordingly, Sri T. Raja Sekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to commence his arguments. He points out that the petitioner was given a show cause notice making certain allegations against him, to which, he has submitted a reply. The reply is filed as material paper, wherein certain issues of facts are raised. The petitioner has denied the entire set of allegations and relied upon his reply. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the impugned order is passed without considering the reply that has been submitted. He relies upon paragraph No.6 of the order, which is as follows;

¶7

“And Whereas, the Chairperson-Ex-Officio Exe. Director of APCOS, after examination of the entire matter with reference to the reports of the Sub-Collector, Tekkali, has decided not to accept the explanation submitted by the delinquent and is of the opinion that the services of the said

¶8

¶9

computer operator are no longer required for his misconduct and irregular practices and hence, decided that penalty of Removal from service shall be imposed on Sri Simma Yugandhar, Computer Operator (outsourcing) O/o the Tahsildar, Santhabommali with immediate effect. ”

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the allegation made is that he has fraudulently colluded with one Dharmana Appanna, Village Revenue Officer. An enquiry was directed to be conducted against both these persons. But, by proceedings dated 07.6.2021, the suspension order against the said D. Appanna was revoked and he was reinstated into service.

¶11

Learned counsel also argues that an order of this nature is stigmatic in nature and punishment of termination of services, which is awarded will carry a stigma. Therefore, he argues that the order should be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated.

¶12

Reading of the instructions given to the learned Government Pleader also shows that the Sub-Collector, Tekkali has been appointed as an enquiry officer and the Tahsildar, Santhabommali is appointed as the presenting officer. It is not clear what happened to the said enquiry and what is the report given by the Sub-Collector, Tekkali.

¶13

¶14

This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that there is a gross failure of rules of natural justice. The order thus carries a stigma since it is a termination from services. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the explanation submitted and conduct the enquiry from the stage of the reply given to the show cause notice and finish the process within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the enquiry. It is needless to say that a speaking order should be passed. In addition, the respondents are at liberty to pass an order on merits without being influenced by the fact that the High Court has passed the order.

¶15

The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed at the stage of admission itself and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶17

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

¶18

Date : 06.9.2021 GR

Simma Yugandhar v. The District Collector Srikakulam (Apcos)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simma Yugandhar v. The District Collector Srikakulam (Apcos)

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

J.Ruksana Parveen, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

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

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