Partly allowed

Smt. a. Anantha Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Dec 2024WP/2006/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the order terminating the petitioner as an Additional Program Officer under MGNREGS due to negligence in wage disbursement. The Court remanded the matter to the respondents to consider imposing a minor penalty under Clause 6.4(i)(a) of the Disciplinary Rules for FTEs of SRDS (2012), noting the petitioner had over 15 years of service.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of. Impugned proceedings for termination set aside. Matter remanded to respondents to take action as per Clause 6.4(i)(a) of the Disciplinary Rules for FTEs of SRDS (2012) withi

Smt. a. Anantha Lakshmi, Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

/ HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2006 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. A. Anantha Lakshmi, W/o. MSS Bhavannarayana, aged 48 years, R/o. #10-532/2, 3-APSP, Ramanayyapeta Panchayat, Kakinada Rural, Kakinada.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Principle Secretary (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department), Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravati.

¶12

Society for Rural Development Services (SRDS), Office^ofthe Commissioner Rural Development, D. No. 12-47, PVS Icon,^Pathuru Cross Road, Tadepalli, Guntur District-522501

¶13

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency (DWMA) East Godavari District and Joint^ecretary, Society for Rural^Development Services (SRDS).

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the 3rd respondent proceedings RC No. 15/2021/SPL. Social Audit /DVC, dated

¶16

19-04-2021 in terminating the petitioner as FTE which is confirmed by the 2nd respondent Appellate authority vide Proceedings^{No.1187/SRDS/PM'-} HR/2021, dated 14-12-2021 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and also against the Norms of the Public Policy and Principles^{ofNaturalJustice} and to set aside the same and are contrary to the disciplinary rules for PTEs of SRDS (2021) and to issue a consequential direction, directing the respondent authorities to restore petitioner services s APO of East Godavari District under the fixed tenure employee.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

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 direct the respondent authorities to continue the services of the petitioner by suspending the Proceedings No. 1187/SRDS/PM'-HR/20 21, dated 14-12-2021 and RC No. 15/2021/SPL. Social Audit /DVC, dated 1904-2021 of the 2nd and 3rd respondent authorities, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY SC FOR MGNREGS

¶22

The Court made the following order:

¶23

¶24

APHC010029012022

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3310]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 2006 OF 2022

¶32

Between:

¶33

Smt. A. Anantha Lakshmi,

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶42

2.M S R CHANDRA MURTHY

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶46

seeking the following relief:

¶47

" to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the 3''"' respondent proceedings R.C.No. 15/2021/SPL. Social Audit/DVC, dated 19.04.2021 in terminating the petitioner as FTE which is confirmed by the 2"^' respondent Appellate Authority vide proceedings No. 1187/SRDS/PM-HR/2021,^{dated14.12.2021} as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and also against^{theNormsofthePublic}

¶48

¶49

Policy and principles of natural justice and to set^{asidethesameandare} contrary to the disciplinary rules for PTEs of SRDS^{(2021)andtoissuea} consequential direction, directing the respondent authorities to restore petitioner services as APO of East Godavari District^{underthefixedtenure} employee and pass such other orders....”

¶50

Heard Mr. Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-IV for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3'''^ respondent.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been appointed as Additional Program Officer (APO) under contract agreement, initially for a period of one year and the same^isbeing continued for the past 15 years and she allotted to work at East^Godavari District for executing the works under the respondents, duly providing wage employment opportunities in the rural areas. While the matter stood thus, basing on the allegations made by the financial audit with regard to financial irregularities the 3'^'^ respondent issued show cause notices dated 23.02.2021^{and19.03.2021,} for which she submitted explanation. The disciplinary authority, the 3 rd respondent has passed an impugned order dated 19.04.2021 terminating the services under Rule 5.22 of The Disciplinary Policy^{forPTE’sofSRDSRules} 2013. Aggrieved by the same, she has preferred an Appeal^beforethe2 nd respondent, who in turn confirmed the order of the 3''^ respondent. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came^tobefiled.

¶52

¶53

¶54

Per contra, 3^^ respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material allegations made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner was appointed as APO on contract basis in the year^{2007underMGNREGS} Scheme and same is being extended from time to time^and it comes to an end by 30.06.2021. The relationship between the parties are purely contractual. An adverse news item was published on 25.12.2020 regarding non-payment of wages to the MGNREGS wage seekers in Chirathapudi Gram Panchayat, Ambajipeta Mandal, East Godavari District. The 3^^ respondent has conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to the Commissioner,^whointurn constituted the State Level Team to conduct open enquiry^{intothedetailsof} the news item and allegations made by the Human Rights^{Forum.TheState} Level Team has submitted a report on 31.12.2020 duly proposed to conduct special Social Audit on this item. Basing on report^{oftheJointCommissioner,} the 3'"'^ respondent issued proceedings temporary out of contract with the show cause notice dated 23.02.2021. The petitioner^{hasalsosubmittedan} explanation dated 01.03.2021 and attended personal hearing on 04.03.2021. Again issued show cause notice on 19.03.2021 and the^{petitionerhasinturn} submitted an explanation dated 27.03.2021. It is further^{contendedthatthe} wage employment was provided to the wage seekers. The^{paymentwillbe} made to them within a period of 15 days as per Circular^{dated03.10.2013or} else the wage seekers are entitled to claim interest.^{Thewageseekersare} provided work with different I.D numbers after completion^{ofsixmonths,the} wage seekers are not received the wages. It shows that^{thereisnegligenceon}

¶55

¶56

the part of the petitioner. The 3'"'^ respondent after^{carefulexaminationofentire} records, it was detected that the petitioner was violated^JobCardand no payments were made to the wage seekers. Therefore, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide proceedings dated 19.04.2021. Assailing the same, the petitioner has filed an Appeal before the 2^^ respondent on 22.04.2021. The petitioner has also attended hearing of the appeal on 08.09.2021. Since the charges are established and gross negligence in supervision of works, coupled with slackness and indifference^towards her duties and dismissed the appeal dated 14.10.2021. The 3^*^ respondent has followed due procedure as contemplated under and circular^{dated08.01.2013.} Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and^same is liable to be dismissed.

¶57

Perused the record.

¶58

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that a complaint was made in the news paper on 25.12.2020^about the Chiratapudi Gram Panchayat with regard to financial irregularities and suspended the petitioner, though the petitioner was not at Ambajipeta Mandal and the petitioner has been transferred on 28.11.2020 to Mandapeta Mandal. After the financial audit conducted by State Level^{Teamfrom04.01.2021} to 09.01.2021, it has been found that the wages have to be paid to 146 workers with regard to the said allegation, unless the FA uploads the second photo and sends the same to the office and the amount has to be released by the Commissioner and then disbursement of payments will be made. In fact, the

¶59

¶60

¶61

FA till date has not uploaded the second photo, hence, the question of slackness or negligence on the part of the petitioner does not arise and remaining allegations are fault of the computer operators, hence the charges against the petitioner and passing of order of termination is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶62

It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the respondents 2 and 3 under Rule 5.22, by terminating the services of the petitioner has no bearing for the penalty imposed on the petitioner, as per Rule 6.4(i)(b). Therefore, imposition of termination of service of the petitioner by the 3'^'^ respondent and confirmed by the 2"*^ respondent is highly illegal, null and void. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

¶63

The appellate authority has made observations in^{theorderdated} 14.10.2021 that the petitioner has not placed any material papers or evidence in support of her pleas. Further, observed that the petitioner emphasized two aspects, one is with regard to her performance in NREGS^{andsecondoneis} with regard to her explanation that whatever blunders or misdeeds happened, they were due to negligence and mistakes of others, and there was no mistake on her part. If that being so, a question naturally arises with regard to role of Additional Programme Officer. As per the Job Chart, provided in Annexure to the G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 27.09.2014, wherein it is clearly stated that the responsible for complete management of Muster^{RollsandM.Book} and shall ensure timely pay order generation in co-ordination^with all FAs/

¶64

¶65

Cos/ TAsx and EC. In this connection, the petitioner^{shallensurethatfilledup} Muster Rolls along with M.Books are received intime^and are properly scrutinized and pay orders are generated by the CO^{intime.Theobligations} stated in the job chart expected to be discharged by^{thepetitioner,butsame} could not be done and utterly failed to ensure issuance of work commencement letter and management of Muster rolls^{relatedtotheworks} and failed to ensure that pay orders are generated^accordingly.

¶66

The Appellate Authority further finds that when^{examinedtheprocess} and procedure involved regarding Buvan Photos uploading, it is noticed that for every work under taken under NREGS, three stage^{photosaretobetaken} and uploaded. The first one before commencement of^{workandsecondone} after completion of 30% of work, but before completion^{of60%workandthe} third one after completion of work i.e after closure^{ofwork.Intheinstantworks} nd executed at Chirathapudi, for all works under respective^{I.DsBhuvan’s2} photo was not taken and uploaded. The reason is that^{morethan60%ofwork} was shown completed and system did not allow it. In^{normalcourse,APshall} verify the status of Muster Rolls, as to how many Musters^issuedandhow many Muster Rolls along with M.Books received in MCC login, for raising FTOs/ Payslips. In the instant case, had the APO verified^{Musters,certainly,} the problem related to Bhuvan’s photo should have been^{noticedandthen} she should have entrusted the problem issue to the^concerned Technical Assistant to verify the details with regard to percentage^{ofworkdoneandtake} steps to correct it. But the petitioner miserably failed^{todoso.Meanwhile30}

¶67

¶68

days of time limit has been over and the system did not allow it to proceed further and rectify it and thus wage seekers (19 in nos) did not receive their due wages.

¶69

In reply to the argument of the respondents, the petitioner would contend that during the enquiry, it is proved that^{theentireissuehasarisen} due to slack supervision, negligence and lack of monitoring by the entire MGNREGS team at Mandal level and recommended for severe disciplinary action on them, which falls minor penalty. Penalties 6.4 of Disciplinary Rules for FTEs of SRDS (2012), which reproduced hereunder:

¶70

6.4 Penalties:

¶71

The FTEs who are found to have committed acts of omission/ and commission are liable for penalties depending on the type of act of omission/ and commission as given in Annexure-1.

¶72

The following shall be the minimum and maximum penalties^{fortheomission/} and commission calling for minor or major penalties as the case may be:

¶73

(a) Minor penalty: A penalty being not less than Rs. 1,000/- and extending up to Rs. 10,000/- for any acts of omissions/ and commissions calling for minor penalty,

¶74

(b) Major penalty: termination of the contract agreement and disqualification for further employment under the Society in any cadre.

¶75

(ii) Whenever an offence has been committed calling for imposition of major penalty, the contract of appointment shall be suspended immediately on conclusion of the social audit public hearing or quality control inspection report or report in the special enquiry as ordered by District Programme Coordinator or Commissioner, Rural Development.

¶76

(Hi) Penalty shall be over and above any recovery of pecuniary^{losscausedeither} to the wage seeker or to the Government by negligence^{orbreachoforders} issued from time to time.

¶77

¶78

In view of the said rules, learned counsel for the petitioner categorically submitted that the petitioner has not^{committedgraveerrorto} impose major punishment in the instant case. If really she found any irregularity on her own latches, major punishment can^{beimposed,butinthe} instant case, technical issues have involved and said^{factshastobelooked} into, but said facts have not been considered by the^{respondents.Sinceminor} omission and commission has been involved apparently, the respondents has to impose penalty as per Clause 6.4 (a) of the Disciplinary^{RulesforFTEsof} SRDS (2012), but imposed major penalty without following^{dueprocedureas} contemplated under law. Hence, the impugned order is^{liabletobedismissed.}

¶79

No doubt, it is apparent on the face of the record^{thepetitionerhas} committed irregularity in not disburse the payments^{tothewageseekersand} same was observed by the respondents in its order.^{But,intheinstantcase,} imposition of major punishment against the petitioner^{ispurelytechnicalor} intentional is the question to be decided in this writ^petition.

¶80

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also been awarded the best APO by the^{Hon’bleChiefMinister} of A.P and District Collector, East Godavari District for extraordinary services rendered, for the wage opportunities created in the rural areas in East Godavari District. And further contended that the respondents^havenottaken any steps against similarly situated persons in same irregularities and excused them for the reasons best known to them and imposed major punishment against the petitioner is highly unwarranted^{andillegal.Therefore,}

¶81

¶82

requested this Court to take into consideration of^{theseaspectsandpass} appropriate order in this writ petition.

¶83

In view of findings given by both the disciplinary^{authorityandalso} appellate authority, it is very clear that the petitioner^{hascommittedirregularity} while discharging duties and caused inconvenience to^{thewageseekersto} disburse the payments as per respective works allotted^{underI.Ds.Further,} the petitioner is having more than 15 years of service.

¶84

In view of foregoing discussion, this Court is^{inclinedtodisposeof} the writ petition, while setting aside the impugned^{proceedingsissuedbythe} respondents dated 19.04.2021 and 14.12.2021 respectively^{andremandback} the matter to the respondents, with a direction to^{totakestepsagainstthe} petitioner as per Clause 6.4 (i) (a) of the Disciplinary^{RulesforFTEsofSRDS} (2012) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with^{law,withinaperiodof} four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy^ofthisorder.

¶85

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is^disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶86

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand

¶87

closed.

¶88

SDI- K KASIRAO ACHARl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶89

it ‘j

¶90

To,

¶91

The Principle Secretary (Panchayat Raj and Rural^Development Department), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat,^Velgapudi, Amaravati.

¶92

Society for Rural Development Services (SRDS), Office^ofthe Commissioner Rural Development, D. No. 12-47, PVS Icon,^Pathuru Cross Road, Tadepalli, Guntur District-522501

¶93

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency (DWMA) East Godavari District and Joint Secretary, Society for Rural Development Services (SRDS).

¶94

One CC to Sri. Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Advocate [OPUC]

¶95

Two CCs to GP for Services IV, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶96

Three CD Copies

¶97

GSC

¶98

HIGH COURT DATED:20/12/2024

¶99

ORDER

¶100

WP.No.2006 of 2022

¶101

9-
5 0 q JAN 2r-25 % m

¶102

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶103

WITHOUT COSTS

Smt. a. Anantha Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. a. Anantha Lakshmi, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakunthala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Mahaboob Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Siva Prasada Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Damodharam Vs the Syndicate Bank

M.Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Rajasekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh