Allowed

Mr. D.Venkateswarlu, v. Food Corporation of India

Andhra Pradesh HC2 May 2022WP/5803/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside disciplinary proceedings imposed on employees of the Food Corporation of India regarding food grain transit losses. The Court held that the proceedings were void due to a violation of natural justice as no personal hearing was conducted, maintaining that the writ was maintainable despite the existence of an internal appeal remedy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside and remanded for elaborate enquiry in accordance with law within eight weeks.

Mr. D.Venkateswarlu, Vs Food Corporation of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.5803, 5788 and 5793 of 2013

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

As the issue involved in these three writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

¶5

The petitioners in all these writ petitions assailed the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings imposing penalty of transit loss on the petitioners for transportation of food grains.

¶6

The petitioners are working in the respondents-Food Corporation of India in different categories. Their contention is that the respondents/disciplinary authority had erroneously passed the impugned proceedings alleging that the transportation of food grains is illegal. Against the same, the petitioners preferred appeals, and even before disposal of the said appeals, without conducting any enquiry, issued orders imposing the penalty of ‘Censure’ and also the penalty of recovery against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the Regional Vigilance Squad observed that the loss occurred due to inflated weight at the dispatching station. Inflated weight is always intentional act and therefore it was done only due to a malafide intention, and for this reason, the respondents/ Disciplinary Authority initiated proceedings against the petitioners. He further contended that he has no objection to remand back the matters to the respondents’ authority for fresh consideration.

¶10

A close scrutiny of the impugned orders show, as rightly argued by learned counsel for petitioners, after noting in detail the allegations, the respondents’ authority issued the impugned proceedings, without conducting any enquiry in accordance with law.

¶11

Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the orders are devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having found that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner therein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the cases on hand.

¶12

No doubt, it is argued by learned counsel for respondents that an appeal provision is provided in the concerned

¶13

¶14

rules and thereby the writ is not maintainable. I am not convinced with this argument for the reason, in the instant cases there is a discernible violation of principles of natural justice as noted supra.

¶15

Though admittedly the petitioners submitted their written explanation, the same were not considered and no personal hearing was also granted to the petitioners at the time of enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable.

¶16

In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade

¶17

Marks, Mumbai and others¹ regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious

¶18

remedy, the Apex Court held thus:

¶19

14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

¶20

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).

¶21

The instant cases fall in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here.

¶22

1 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998

¶23

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of both the learned counsels, all the impugned proceedings in all these writ petitions issued by the respondents/Disciplinary Authority against the petitioners are hereby set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondents concerned to conduct elaborate enquiry in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. No

¶26

costs.

¶27

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶28

Date: 02-05-2022. Gvl

¶29

________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶30

¶31

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION Nos.5803, 5788 and 5793 of 2013

¶33

Date: 02.05.2022

¶34

Gvl

Mr. D.Venkateswarlu, v. Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. D.Venkateswarlu, v. Food Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.P.V. Swamy, E-111764, Conductor, Vs the Apsrtc, Rep.Byits Vice Chairman and 2 Oths

T. Kristappa, Ananthapur Dist. Vs P.O., Industrialtribunal Cum Labour Court and Ano.

K. Manesh, Gooty, Ananthapur Dist Vs Prl Secy, He (Ie.I) Dept, Hyd and 3 Others

Bandaru Buchimamba Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Goncharla Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S.Naga Rani, Vs Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences