Disposed

G Vedavalli v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2024WP/19475/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three employees challenged show-cause notices issued by a cooperative society threatening disciplinary action. The Court held writs against notice issuance generally maintainable only if without jurisdiction but disposed this petition under consent recording of parties and directing both sides to cooperate to furnish documents.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with consent; directions given for petitioners to apply for documents, authority to furnish them within two weeks, and submission of explanation within two weeks.

G Vedavalli Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19475 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Vedavalli, D/o Govindappa, Aged about 25 years, Occ Junior Assistant, O/o Kuppam Rural (KRECS), Kuppam Rural Electric Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶9

S. Chandini, D/o E. Srinivasulu, Aged about 27 years, Occ Junior Assistant O/o Revenue, Head Office (KRECS), Kuppam^{RuralElectric} Co-Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶10

P. Manoj Vikram, S/o P. Mohan, Aged about 27 years,^OccTechnical Assistant, O/o Kuppam Operation (KRECS), Kuppam Rural^ElectricCo- Op Society Ltd, Kuppam, Chittor District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department Secretariat, Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur Distinct.

¶14

The Special Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar^ofCo operative Societies, AP, D.No.2-16-83, Near Skylark^Towers,11 th Line, Syamalanagar, Guntur-522006.

¶15

The Kuppam Rural Electric Co-operative Society Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman, Kuppam-517 425, Chittoor District. 3

¶16

The Kuppam Rural Electric Co-operative Society Ltd., Kuppam Rep. by its Managing Director, Chittoor District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 OF MANDAMUS by declaring^theimpugned proceedings vide Roc.No.324/2024 D.No.810/1, D.No.810/2 and D.No.810/6, Dated. 09.08.2024 on the file of the 4'^ respondent whereby issued show cause notices to the petitioners asking their explanations or otherwise proceed with the disciplinary action including termination or removal from service as illegal, arbitrary, prejudged, predetermined, against the Principals of Natural Justice and against^{Article14,16and21} of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents continue the petitioners in the respective posts.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 to suspend the impugned proceedings vide Roc.No.324/2024 D.No.810/1, D.No.810/2 and D.No.810/6, Dated;09.08.2024 of 4th respondent with a specific direction to the 4^^ respondent^{tocontinuethe} petitioners in the respective posts.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

APHC010378682024

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331]

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

MONDAY .THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 19475/2024

¶29

Between:

¶30

G Vedavalli and two others.

¶31

...PETITIONER{S)

¶32

AND

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and three others.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶35

1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶37

1.GP FOR SERVICES 11

¶38

The Court made the following ORDER;

¶39

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief;

¶40

“...declaring the impugned_ proceedings vide Roc No.324/2024 D.No.810/1, D.No.810/2 and D.No.810/6 dated 09.08.2024^onthefileof the 4'^ respondent whereby issued show cause notices^{tothepetitioners} asking their explanations or otherwise proceed with the disciplinary action including termination or removal from service^{asillegal,arbitrary,} prejudged, predetermined, against the Principles of^{naturaljusticeand} against Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents^tocontinue

0 /f

Page 2 of 11

SRS, J Wp_19475_2024

the petitioners in the respective posts and to pass^{suchotherorderor} orders...”

¶45

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed temporarily (voucher basis) on 01.07.2021 in the 4 th respondent Society. Service of petitioners 1 and 2 was regularized by proceedings No.MD/KRECS/KPM/JAO-Adm/F.No. /D.No.682/22, dated 01.08.2022 (Ex.P.3). The 3"^^ petitioner’s services were regularized by proceedings No.M.D/KRECS/KPM/JAO-Adm/F.No.320/D.No. 199/24, dated 28.02.2024. (The Managing Director issued proceedings (Ex.P.2) and appointed the petitioners as Junior Assistants. Since then, the petitioners have been discharging their duties.

¶47

Be that as it may, show-cause notices vide Roc.No.324/2024 dated 09.08.2024 were issued to all the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to submit an explanation within 15 days. Assailing the said show-cause notice, the above writ petition is filed.

¶48

Page 3 of 11

¶49

SRS,J Wp_19475_2024

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that^{oncethepetitioners’} of the Society, were regularized by the Managing Director as per the By-laws the show-cause notice issued by the Managing Director after a change of Government, per se, is illegal and arbitrary and without^{jurisdiction.Learned} notice, the 4^^ reference is the Joint counsel submitted that in the show-cause Collector, Chittoor/ Official Person In-charge note order dated^07.08.2024 which has not been furnished to the petitioners to enable them to submit^the . Learned counsel also submitted that the efforts made^bythe explanation petitioners to secure the proceedings in references^{2,3,and4becamefutile.} He submitted that to submit a proper explanation to^{theshow-causenotice.} He also submitted that the authority those documents are necessary notices are liable to be set aside. premeditated the issue thus the show-cause He also would submit that submitting the explanation to the show cause notices is a futile exercise because of premeditation^{bytheauthority}

¶51

Learned Assistant Government pleader would submit that the writ not maintainable. He also would petition against the show cause notice is documents, they should have made submit that if the petitioners require any an appropriate application. He also would submit that^{aperusaloftheshow} cause notices does not indicate any premeditation and^{thusprayedtodismiss} the writ petition.

Page 4 of 11

SRS, J Wp_19475_2024

The point for consideration is;

¶56

Whether, the show-cause notices dated 09.08.2024 issued to the petitioners, by the Managing Director of the 4‘^ respondent Society suffer from illegality?

¶57

A show cause notice has the solemn purpose of informing the person about the material for which a response is being sought concerning a case. which may constitute a breach, for which he is being^directed to submit an explanation. The very purpose of a show cause notice is to enable the recipient to raise objections, if any, to the proposals made, and the concerned authority is required to address such objections which is the fundamental principle of natural justice.

¶58

Another purpose behind serving a show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the exact case set up against the individual, which one has to meet in its reply, and the proposed action,^which is intended to be taken against the individual, if the reply is unsatisfactory. The purpose of a show cause notice is to enable the noticee to meet the grounds, on which the action is proposed against him. Both conditions must^{befulfilledandmustbe} reflected in the notice itself. If the notice is vague and incomplete, it violates the principles of natural justice.

¶59

Page 5 of 11

¶60

SRS,J Wp_19475_2024

¶61

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services^Vs.Govt.(NCT of Delhi)\ held that to fulfil the requirement of principles^{ofnaturaljustice,} show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz., (i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the^{departmentnecessitates} an action; and (ii) Particular penalty/action which^{isproposedtobetaken.}

¶62

In Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors.^, the Hon’ble^{ApexCourtheld}

¶63

thus:

¶64

“It is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to^{enablethenoticeeto} answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable^{opportunityof} being heard.”

¶65

In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation^ofIndia and Ors.^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus;

¶66

“At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action^issoughttobe taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given^a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic^{principleofnatural} justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority^{concernedshould} give to the affected party a notice of the case against^himsothathe can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order^{travelingbeyond} the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction^tothat extent.”

¶67

(2014) 9 see 105 ^ (1980) 3 see 1 ^(2021) 2 see 551

¶68

Page 6 of 11

¶69

SRS, J Wp_19475_2024

¶70

In Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories'*, the Hon’ble Apex Court,

¶71

observed regarding maintainability of writ petition qua show cause notice as:

¶72

“31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In^{suchacase,the} parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions^beforethe authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities^{concernedabout} the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause^notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, -the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly^{inthatcase,the} writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie^{establishedtobeso.} Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out”.

¶73

In Shakti Me-Dor Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad® and In Union of India Vs Bajaj Tempo Ltd.® it has been held that at the stage of show-cause notice, a writ petition should not be entertained unless such show-cause notice is without jurisdiction. It was held that the contentions in the show-cause notice should be accepted as true and after the petitioner submits its reply thereto, the adjudicating authority would decide the matter. It was also held that the High Court or the Supreme

¶74

(2007) 13 see 270

¶75

^2011 (2)ALD 424 ® 1998(9)SCC281

¶76

Page 7 of 11

¶77

SRS,J Wp_19475_2024

¶78

Court should be approached only after exhausting the remedies^provided under the statute. A similar view has also been expressed in Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs Dunlop India Ltd^.

¶79

Keeping the principles enunciated by the Apex Court, this Court intends to exercise the judicial review under Art 226^{oftheConstitutionof} India. As seen from the material available on record, admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants / Tech. Assistant temporarily (Voucher basis) on 01.07.2021. Later, the petitioners’ were appointed as Assistant Helpers on consolidated pay,^andthere after the services of the petitioners were regularized.

¶80

In the show-cause notices Ex.P.1, it was pointed out that the recruitment/regularization as Junior Assistants/Tech. Assistant in the 4 th respondent Society was done irregularly, without following^{thestandarddue} process by the then authorities. Thus, the show-cause notice was issued calling upon the petitioners to submit an explanation.

¶81

Of course, as pointed out by learned counsel for the^{petitionersinthe} show-cause notice, it was mentioned that ‘the appointment^{isconsideredas} null and void’. It is a settled principle of law that the^noticeis required^to be

H985(19)ELT 22 SC

Page 8 of 11

SRSJ Wp_19475_2024

read as a whole. No meaning can be made out by separating^oneparagraph from another. A hyper-technical view shall not be taken^{bylookingatpartof} the notice. A careful perusal of the recital in the^{notices,itcannotbeconstrued} that the authority premeditated the issue. In the considered^{opinionofthis} court, using the words, null and void, does not mean that the authority premeditated the issue. Unless the authority indicated in the notice about irregularity or illegality the petitioners may not^{beabletoreplyandmeetthe} allegations. Thus, the language employed in the notices^{qua‘appointmentis} null and void’, does not amount to premeditating the^issue.

¶87

When a show-cause notice was issued, the authority^{shouldalsofurnish} or enclose relevant material enabling the recipient to submit an appropriate explanation. The contention of the learned counsel^{forthepetitionersthatthe} efforts made by the petitioners to secure the proceedings^{ofPICMeetings} vide Resolution Nos.9 and 10 and Note order of the Chairman dated 15.12.2023 and the Joint Collector, Chittoor/Official Person In-charge note order dated 07.08.2024 became futile and without those documents, the petitioners may not be able to submit a proper explanation,^{thepetitioners} must make application to the authority to supply the^{requireddocuments.} However, in the case at hand, it seems, no such application^wasmade. If the petitioners make any such application to furnish the documents, the

¶88

Page 9 of 11

¶89

SRSJ Wp_19475_2024

¶90

concerned may furnish the documents as per the Rules enabling the petitioners to submit an explanation.

¶91

Given the discussion supra, since the writ petition is filed against the show-cause notice, though the writ petition is not maintainable, however, in the peculiar facts of this case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of learned counsel on either side at the admission stage, with the following directions:

¶92

The petitioners shall make an application to the 4'^ respondent requesting the authority to furnish the documents required enabling the petitioners to submit a proper explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; 2) If such an application is made, the 4‘^ respondent, subject to the rules and regulations, shall furnish the documents sought by the petitioners enabling them to submit a reply to^theshow- cause notice within two weeks.

¶93

The petitioners shall submit an explanation within two weeks. The Managing Director of the 4‘^ respondent Society shall consider the same objectively and, if necessary, by providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and shall pass appropriate orders.

¶94

Till a decision is taken, the authority of the 4'^ respondent shall not discontinue the petitioners from services.

’V

Page 10 of 11

SRS, J Wp_19475_2024

1. Observations, if any, made in the order cannot be^construed as observations on the merits of the issue. Such observations are made only to dispose of the writ petition.

¶99

No order as to costs.

¶100

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶101

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTER

//TRUE COPY// I

SEC FFICER

The Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation^{Department,State} of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Building, Velagapudi,^Amaravati, Guntur Distinct.

¶106

The Special Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar^ofCo operative Societies, AP, D.No.2-16-83, Near Skylark^{Towers,11thLine,} Syamalanagar, Guntur-522006.

¶107