Disposed

Shaik Meera Vali v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Oct 2023WP/14938/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition by a municipal employee suspended for two years without a completed inquiry or payment of subsistence allowance. The court noted the violation of rights and directed respondents to address representations and complete the enquiry within six months, disposing of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider representations within four weeks and complete the enquiry within six months.

Shaik Meera Vali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER.:. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREEt

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 14938 OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Shaik Meera Vail, S/o. Shaik Ameenabi, Aged about 44 years, D.No 25-21-46,^2nd Lane, KVP Colony, Guntur - 522004.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

I. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, A.P Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶10

The commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, State of Andhra Pradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶11

Regional Director of Municipal Administration and Chairman, Regional Level Committee, 1St Lane, Brodiepeta, Guntur.

¶12

The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Guntur.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in continuing the petitioner under suspension imposed vide Proceedings No. 45008312019/H4, Dated.05-062021, for more than 24 months without completing the enquiry against him, without paying subsistence allowance and also not taking him into service as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the suspension order of the 4th respondent imposed vide Proceedings No. 450083/2019/H4, Dated.05-062021, while directing 3 and 4th respondents to give posting to the petitioner and resume his duties as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II) in Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur District, by paying subsistence allowance pending from the date of said suspension.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to immediately pay the subsistence allowance

¶17

to the petitioner payable to him pursuant to his suspension vide Proceedings No. 450083/2019/H4, Dated.05-06-2021 within a fixed time frame.

¶18

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the^4th respondent to allow the petitioner to continue as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II) in Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur District, by paying the salary and all other benefits.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP for VILLAGE & WARD SECRETARIATS

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.SREEDHAR MURHTY, SC for MUNICIPALITIES

¶23

The Court made the following: order

¶24

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE. V.SUJATHA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.14938 of 2023

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶28

".... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the^4th respondent in continuing the petitioner under suspension imposed vide Proceedings No.450083 / 2019 / H4 Dated 05.06.2021, for more than 24 months without completing the enquiry against him, without paying subsistence allowance and also not taking him into service as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the suspension order of the 4th respondent imposed vide Proceedings No.450083/2019/H4 Dated 05.06.2021, while directing 3rd and 4th respondents to give posting to the petitioner and resume his duties as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II) in Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur District, by paying subsistence allowance pending from the date of said suspension "

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II) in Guntur District vide proceedings of respondent No.3 bearing Rcoc.No.25919/2019/Al / DSC-2019 and thereafter, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to admit the petitioner and allot the ward Secretariat in respondent No.4 corporation

¶30

¶31

V S,J wp_14938_2023

¶32

which is not a native election ward of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was posted in 23rd ward of respondent No.4 Municipal Corporation i.e. Srinivasaraopeta (1021071) Sachivalayam. After joining in the said post, the petitioner started discharging his duties at the workplace faithfully and diligently to the satisfaction of all the superiors. Due to local politics, a false Criminal case was registered against him in the Guntur Urban district women police station on 03.06.2021 as FIR No.126/2O21 on the complaint lodged by one Udata Yesumani alleging that the petitioner sexually harassed her. Basing on the said complaint, police arrested the petitioner and sent him to judicial remand. Due to which, vide Proceedings No.45OO83/2O19/H4, Dated 05.06.2021 respondent No.4 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and placed him under suspension till completion of the said enquiry while granting subsistence allowance as per rules. The said suspension order was passed around 2 years ago and till date, the petitioner has not received subsistence allowance for even a month.

¶33

The petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.4 on 28.07.2021, 07.09.2021 and 30.09.2021 requesting to

¶34

¶35

V S,J wp_14938_2023

¶36

reinstate him in the service by revoking the suspension, for which respondent No.4 failed to consider the same.

¶37

Meanwhile, in the month of November 2022, respondent No.3 issued a charge memo vide Roc.No.307429/2022/A1, Dated 09.11.2022 stating that an enquiry will be held against the petitioner as per procedure laid down under Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 for alleged charges which are 3 in Number. Along with the said order, the authorities communicated list of documents, but no list of witness were cited. The documents stated in the list of documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge memo vide letter dated 18.11.2022 to respondent No.3 herein.

¶38

It is further contended that the enquiry has not yet commenced, whereas the petitioner is still placed under suspension and not even paid the subsistence allowance for the past 24 months i.e. from the date of suspension. The said action of keeping the petitioner under suspension for a very long period i.e. 24 months without completing the enquiry and without paying the subsistence allowance, is illegal, arbitrary , and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of

¶39

¶40

vS,J wp_14938_2023

¶41

Constitutional of India. The petitioner submitted representations to respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 17.04.2023 and again on 07.05.2023 requesting to revoke his suspension or provide subsistence allowance, but till date the respondents did not pass any orders on the said representations. Hence, the writ petition.

¶42

Respondent No.4 filed counter contending that the petitioner was provisional appointed as Ward Welfare Secretary (Grade-II) in Guntur District vide Roc.No.25919/2019/A1/DSC2019 by respondent No.3 and posted in respondent No.4 Corporation on consolidated pay of Rs. 15,000/- per month for a period of two years. On satisfactory completion of 2 years of probation, he will be given regular scale of pay.

¶43

It is contended that the Government has issued A.P.Municipal General Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.286, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (UBS) Department, dated 07.11.2019, in which as per rule 20 (4) under Sub head: Discipline and Control, an appeal against any order passed by the Commissioner shall lie to the concerned appointing authorities and it shall be made within one month and as per rule 20 (5) an appeal against any order passed by the concerned appointing authorities shall lie to the concerned

¶44

¶45

wp_14938_2023

¶46

Head of the Department and it shall be made within 3 months. The petitioner did not file any appeal before respondent No.3 nor choose the option of filing any representation before the Government viz. Commissioner and. Director of Municipal Administration or Municipal Administration and Urban Development authority, without availing alternative remedy, the petitioner directly approached this Court and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶47

It is further contended that the petitioner submitted representation to respondent Nos.3 and 4 seeking reinstatement stating that 24 months of suspension period has been completed. As the disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 against the petitioner is pending for consideration, respondent No.4 could not reinstate the petitioner into service. Further, the probation of the petitioner is not declared, the suspended official shall submit a certificate as per F.R.53 (2) that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. The petitioner is not entitled for subsistence allowance for not declaration of probation of the petitioner and for non-production of non-employment certificate and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶48

¶49

vS,J wp_14938_2023

¶50

The petitioner filed reply to the counter filed by respondent No.4 reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. In the reply, the writ petitioner specifically contended that he was under the impression that the said suspension was purely under the CCA Rules and as there is no reference with regard to appeal in the impugned order, he did not file appeal within one month as per Rule 20 (5) of A.P.Municipal General Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 and that as the enquiry is still pending and as he was not terminated from service, the technical bar of non-declaration of probation does not come in the way of claiming subsistence allowance and requested to allow the writ petition.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

¶52

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for subsistence allowance for non declaration of probation and for nonproduction of non-employment certificate and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶53

The facts are not in dispute. It is evident from the record, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings

¶54

V S,J wp_14938_2023

¶55

¶56

No.450083/2019/H4, dated 05.06.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondents on 28.07.2021 and 30.09.2021 pleading his innocence. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner submitted another representation 17.04.2023 and on 07.05.2023 requesting the respondents authorities to revoke his suspension or provide subsistence allowance, but till date the respondents did not pass any orders on the said representation and not paying. any subsistence allowance. Further, in the order of suspension, it was not mentioned that an appeal would lie under Rule 20 (5) of the A.P.Municipal General Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 against the suspension order. Therefore, the petitioner did not file an appeal within one month as per Rule 20 (5) of A.P.Municipal General Subordinate Service Rules, 2019.

¶57

It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government issued instructions in Circular Memo No.24637/35676/Ser.C./98-I G.A.(Ser.C) dept dated 1.7.1998 and Memo No.24637/Serv.C/2000-2 GA (Ser.C) Dept

¶58

dated 5.9.2000 to complete disciplinary proceedings within 3 months in simple cases, and 6 months in complicated cases. In

¶59

¶60

V S,J wp_14938_2023

¶61

the present case, admittedly, the enquiry has not been completed for the last more than two years.

¶62

Therefore, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the above said memo, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶63

(1) The respondents are directed to consider the representations dated 17.04.2023 and on 07.05.2023 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶64

(2) The respondents are also directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶66

Petition shall stand closed.

¶67

Sd/- K.TATA^RAO DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

OFFICER

¶70

To, 1. The^{Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, State of} Andhra Pradesh,^{A.P Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.} 2. The^{Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, State of Andhra} Pradesh, Tadepalli,^{Guntur District.} 3. The^{Regional Director of Municipal Administration and Chairman, Regional} Level Committee,^{1StLane, Brodiepeta, Guntur.} 4. The^{Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur.} 5. One CC to^{Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Advocate [OPUC]} 6. One CC to^{Sri K.Sreedhar Murhty, SC for Municipalities [OPUC]} 7. Two CCs to^{GP for Village and Ward Secretariats, High Court of Andhra} Pradesh. [OUT]

¶71

Two CD^Copies RAM gl

1w~~Ac:_:} L-

HIGH COURT

DATE 13:1311012023

ORDER

WP.No.14938 of 2023

04 NOV 2023
Current Section f
~':aEs PAT CKEaf'

¶78

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Shaik Meera Vali v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Meera Vali v. The 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

Sri Mudiyam Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs the State of Andrha Pradesh

Yaddanapudi Surya Narayana Sarma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Talari Meghanath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Lakshmi Narayana Vs the State of Ap

V Satyanarayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Gopalakrishna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh