Dismissed

Shaik Mahaboob Peera, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2024WP/20188/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 20188 of 2024, the petitioner challenged his removal from service as a Field Assistant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition without costs, holding that the issue was squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 467 of 2023 which found no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the State respondents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The registry is directed to annex a copy of the judgment dated 14.07.2024 in W.A. No. 467 of 2023.

Shaik Mahaboob Peera, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20188 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shaik Mahaboob Peera, S/o Peeran, Aged about 31 years,^Occ Field Assistant R/o D.No.8/77, Jyothi Colony, Settigunta,^{KadapaDistrict.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Energy} department. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company^Ltd,Rep. by its Chairman and Managing director. Corporate Office,^Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶12

The Chief General Manager/HRD, The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd Corporate Office, Tirupati,^Chittoor District.

¶13

The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, The^{AndhraPradesh} Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd Vidyuth Bhavan,^Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

¶14

The Executive Engineer, Transformers Division APSPDCL,^Kadapa, Kadapa district.

¶15

The Deputy Executive Engineer, SPM-1, APSPDCL, Kadapa^Kadapa district. ^7. The Asst. Executive Engineer, SPM, APSPDCL, Kadapa,^Kadapa ■ ' district. 8. M/s. C. Vasantharao (S.C.), Electrical and Mechanical^CivilWorks, ■ Rajiv Nagar Colony, Miduthuru village and panchayath.^Kajipeta Mandal, Kadapa District - 516 203 Rep. by C. Boyazu,^Contractor, Kadapa.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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^{particularlyoneinnature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondent^No.3 for initiating direction for removal of the petitioner from the services vide Proceedings in Memo. No. CGM(HRD)/GM/HRll/DGM(DC)/PO(DC)/F.No.567-ll-KDPE.S/D.No.639/24 dated 01.07.2024 basing upon the Chief Vigilance recommendations and the subsequent in Memo. memo of Respondent No.4 for the issuance of Proceedings No.SE/0/KDP/ADM/P0/JA0/J5/F.127/D.No.1976 dated 22.07.2024^andthe succedding letter of Respondent No.5 herein in issuing^{proceedingsdatdd} 24-07-2024 in Lr.No.EE/TRS/KDP/JAO/ADM/S2/D.No.408/24 and the consequential proceedings dated 25-07-2024 issued by^{RespondentNo.8in} removing the petitioner from the service as Field Assistant,^APSPDCL without giving the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing^{asillegal,arbitrary,} violative of principles of natural justice as alos^{contrarytoillegal,arbitrary} and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14,19 (i) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Principals of natural justice and consequently continue the petitioner in the services^{bysettingasidethe} proceedings issued by Respondents No.3,4,5 and 8 dated^{01-07-2024,22-} 07-2024, 24-07-2024 and 25-07-24 respectively.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ^{petition,theHighCourtmay} be pleased to suspend the operation of proceedings^{issuedbyRespondents} 22.07.2024, 24.07.2024 and 25-07- 2024 No.3,4, 5 and 8 dated 01.07.2024 herein to discharge his services in the respectively and permit the petitioner usual course.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICE I Counsel for the Respondents^{No.2to7:M/sANUMOLUJYOTHI} RATNA (SC FOR APSPDCL)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: —

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

APHC010393022024

¶24

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

¶25

[3331]

¶26

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 20188/2024

Between;

Shaik Mahaboob Peera

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and 7 others.

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner;

¶37

1.VN1TESH

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶39

1.GP FOR SERVICES!

¶40

JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR APSPDCL

¶41

The Court made the following ORDER;

¶42

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief;

¶43

...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly^one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondent^No.3 for initiating direction for removal of the petitioner from the services^vide Proceedings in Memo.No.CGM(HRD)/GM/HR-ll/DGM(DC)/PO(DC) /F.N0.567-11-KDP E.S/D.No.639/24 dated 01.07.2024 basing^uponthe recommendations and the subsequent memo of Chief Vigilance Respondent no.4 for initiating the issuance of Proceedings in Memo No.SE/0/KDP/ADM/PO/JAO/J5/F.127/D.No 1976 dated 22.07.2024^and

¶44

Page 2 of 5

¶45

SRS,J Wp_20188_2024

¶46

the subsequent letter of Respondent No.5 herein in issuing proceedings dated 23.07.2024 in Lr.No.EE/O/PDL/AEE/Comml/F.No./D.No.1099 of 2024 and the consequential proceedings dated 25.07.2024 issued by Respondent No.8 in removing the petitioner from the^serviceas Shift Operator, APSPDCL without giving me an opportunity of hearing as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently continue the petitioner in the services by setting aside the proceedings issued by Respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 8 dated 01.07.2024, 22.07.2024, 23.07.2024 and 25.07.2024 respectively and pass such other order or orders...

¶47

Heard Sri V.Nitesh learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Jyothiratna Anumolu, learned junior standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 8.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially engaged as Watchman in Siddhareddyharipalli Sub Station, Chakraipeta section of Pulivendula Town. Later on 17.05.2022 petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant. He would submit that on 26.07.2024 the petitioner was informed by the 8*^ respondent not to^{attendtheduties.Learned} counsel would also submit that on the directions of the 3'''^ respondent, the petitioner was removed from service.

¶49

Learned junior standing counsel submitted that the writ petition, per se. is not maintainable. She further submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated^{14.07.2024inW.A.No.467} of 2023 and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶50

Page 3 of 5 SRS, J Wp_20188_2024

¶51

¶52

The W.A.No.467 of 2023 is filed challenging the order^{dated30.08.2022} - in W.P.No.31107 of 2022. The W.P.No.31107 of 2022 was^{filedbytheShift} Operator impugning the termination proceedings issued^{bythecontractor.The} learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing^thatthere is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and official respondents 1 and 2. The matter went for appeal and^{theDivisionBenchofthis} Court dismissed the writ appeal by judgment dated 14.07.2024.^{InParaNo.10of} the judgment, the Division Bench extracted the relevant^{portionfromtheorderof} the learned single judge. In fact, it was observed^{thatthepaymentmadeoutof} an escrow account would not establish an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner/workmen and the official respondents. 6. The issue involved is squarely covered by the judgment^{dated14.07.2024} in W.A.No.467 of 2023. 7. Given the discussion supra, this Writ Petition is dismissed.^TheRegistry is directed to annex a copy of the judgment dated 14.07.2024^inW.A.No.467 of 2023. No order as to costs.

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

OneCCto SRI. V. NITESH, Advocate [OPUC] 2. TwoCCsto GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT]

¶59

One CC to M/s. ANUMOLU JYOTHI RATNA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three C.D. Copies

¶60

(Along with copy of the order dated.14.07.2024 in W.A.^No.467of2023 enclosed herewith)*

¶61

¶62

¶63

HIGH COURT DATED: 17/09/2024

¶64

ORDER
o<br>X 10 OCT m
WP.No.20188 of 2024 09
. Current ;>eciion ^

¶65

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

GN,J & HN,J 1 W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶67

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶69

WRIT APPEAL No:467 of 2024

¶70

JUDGMENT:- (per Sri Justice G. Narendar)

¶71

Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and learned^Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶72

Notice to the Respondent No.4 is dispensed with, in^{viewofthefactthat} the Respondent No.4 is none other than the co-employee^{andauthorofthe} complaint, on the basis of which, departmental proceedings have been initiated. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent^{No.4hadalsolodgedan} independent complaint with the jurisdictional police^{resultingintheregistration} of the complaint as FIR No.7 of 2024, dated 02.02.2024^{ofSteelPlantPolice} Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate.

¶73

Pursuant to the information by the Respondent No.4,^{acomplaintcame} to be registered invoking provisions of Section 3(1 )(r),^{3(1)(s)oftheSCs&the} STs (POA) Act. The complaint lodged by the Respondent^{No.4withinthe} jurisdictional police reads as under:

¶74

“I, Nalli Bhanu was working as General Manager and^Headofthe Department in Steel Plant Training Department. I belong to Scheduled Caste (S.C) [Mala] of Women Officer of Mala Community. In the last year Sri Anantha Purwar, who^wasthe Manager of Steel Plant of Rayabaleri. Anantha Purwar was transferred as Manager of Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam^intraining

¶75

¶76

GN,J&HN,J 2 , W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶77

¶78

department as he got disputes among the in-charge manager and co-employees. From the date of joining here onwards he is satisfaction of employer and he used not doing the duties to the to behave in rash manner. He put me in troubies though fm he abused me through HOD. On 01.02.2024 at 12.00 noon that I appraised him by giving lower mobile phone by stating without considering marks and also abused me in filthy language . He abused that I got job on reservation in me that I am a woman caste and called me as^{‘MalaLanjaKuthura”.Thereafterhe} my room by pushing the switched off his phone and came to my the presence of my door loud voice and tried to attack on me in CO-employees who rescued me. Previously also, a similar complaint was given against him. Therefore, kindly^{investigatein} this matter and do necessary action as per law and give necessary protection to me along with my family members. similar complaint 4) It is the case of the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 that a with the Management, pursuant to which, the was also came to be lodged sheet, dated 10.02.2024. The Management proceeded to issue charge Annexure-ll in the statement of Imputations of misconduct is annexed as charge sheet and the statement of Imputation reads as under;

¶79

Management Trainee (Tech) 1. You had joined RINL, VSP as working as Manager (Training) on 01.11.2012. At present, you are in L&DC Dept. received that on 2. 4 complaint dated 01.02.2024 was > 01 02 2024, you called Mr. N. Bhanu, GM (Training) mobile forandthestartedFY 2022-23.arguingWhenand abusingshe told heryou onthatyourshe ^PP^awill start rating disconnected the phone. Later, in a few recording your call, you and started shouting at minutes, you barged into HOD’s office room

¶80

GNJ & HNJ 3 W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶81

t fy (

¶82

her with high pitch. Hearing this, her PA and other^sub-ordinate colleagues had rushed into her office, standing there witnessing and trying to pacify you. Hod tried to counsel you about appraisal rating given to you and also informed you about the appeal procedure. Hod even told that your unruly behavior will be recorded. But you did not heed to the request and continued shouting with loud pitch and widened eyes. Your derogatory statements include caste discrimination, derogatory^commentson the HoD’s social status and allegations on HoD and^{herControlling} Officer.

¶83

Subsequently, you were suspended from duties vide Suspension Order No.24/L&DC/123159/dt. 05.02.2024 [eDark/L&DC/2024/74].

¶84

The above acts on your part constitutes misconduct,^interms of Clauses 5.12 and 5.20 of the RINL Conduct, Discipline^and Appeal Rules.

¶85

From the reading of the above, the charge framed by^{themanagement} and the charge to be investigated by the jurisdictional^{policeareoneandthe} same, and in that view, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this is a case that would squarely be covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony^{vs.BharatGold}

¶86

Mines Ltd and another\ wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court^{inPara22and23} has been pleased to observe and held as under:

¶87

The conclusions which are deducibie from various decisions^of this Court referred to above are:

¶88

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal^casecan proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their^{beingconducted} simultaneously,though separately.

¶89

^ (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679

¶90

GN,J&HN,J 4 W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶91

identical and similar set of faas a a involves against the dellnguent employee lejfearave^ Za!tm%iTpeTms 0 the conclusion of the criminal case.

¶92

(Hi) Whether the nature Ind^Z^'are^invhvedin that ZZZ^^^^oras reflected In the charge

¶93

sheet,

¶94

(iv) The factors mentioned at (li) and ^but^due regard^hasto ',"ZnZZZcTta7"epaZen0 proceedings cannot he unduly deiayed.

¶95

(V) If the criminal case does Tthey were stayed on delayed, the departmental proceeding , resumed and cfcouni of the pendency oZLT'ZtanZZ^esZat if the proceeded with so as to iJndicated and in case

¶96

It was on this basis that criminal case was '^Z'tfZovery set of facts, constituting the ar/rf and recovery

¶97

On the same departmental proceedings were " the '■recovery was treated to ZToeTclonZatThe Zpartmental charge sheet, the appellant raised P nroceedings was^the proLdlngs may be stayed as the basis of th^e P^^ZZcase^had raid conducted at /„5 ^ 1 that the decision of already been launched agains ' down. to '“v”tcrrr£ —r;—.-ys suspension. The order ot ^itp the departmental respondents f ^ J ^^^nded by the appellant as he proceedings which could ^ His reauest for adjournment informed the inquiry Ofncer that he wa i^ L acceded^to of the departmental proceedings on that ground

¶98

GN,J & HN,J 5 W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶99

U f

¶100

and the proceedings continued ex-parte against him.^{Hewasultimately} found guilty of the charges and was dismissed from^service.

¶101

(Emphasis supplied)

¶102

Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would contend that the said position is no more a good law in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case^{ofStateBankofIndia} and Others Vs. P. Zadenga^ and placed reliance on Para^{Nos.31to35which}

¶103

reads as under;

¶104

"31. As a principle of law, we have already observed that a departmental proceeding pending criminal trial would^notwarrantan automatic stay unless, of course, a complicated question^oflaw is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto^wouldnotbe tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings^infavourofa delinquent employee.

¶105

Having perused the delinquent employee's response to the Initiation of inquiry proceedings, most significantly,^{wenoticethatno} plea of MoS was ever taken. No specific plea of postponement of disciplinary proceedings awaiting conclusion of a criminal trial was made.

¶106

It Is seen that the officer neither pleaded nor indicated^the prejudice caused to him as a consequence of the initiation^{of criminal} proceedings or simultaneous continuation of both proceedings.

¶107

Applying all of the above-noted principles to the^factsofthe case, we find that neither was it the case of the delinquent^employee that the trial to which he was subjected to begin within^oneyearof the commission of the offence nor does the record speak to this effect. It Is in the inquiry report 10, dated 3rd December^2001,thatan objection to the disciplinary proceedings being conducted^while a criminal case was being tried is registered, but even^there,nodate stands specified. 10 Annexure P-4 Pg.109 of the Paperbook

¶108

^ (2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 675

¶109

GN,J & HNJ 6 - W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶110

I \

¶111

Further, it is not the case of the deiinquent empioyee^thatthe principies of naturai justice were not compiied with^{inthediscipiinary} proceedings of the bank." (Emphasis suppiled)

¶112

Learn6cl counsel would contend that the right of the^Respondents- Management, from proceeding further with the enquiry^{cannotbecurtailed} and that the respondents should not be tied down from^{dischargingtheir} duties in the light of the above law laid down by the^{Hon’bleApexCourt.}

¶113

Having heard the learned counsels, the short and undisputed^factthat emerges is that the Respondent No.4 is complainant^and has lodged a complaint both with the management and the jurisdictional^{policeonsimilar} lines i.e. the petitioner has committed acts which are punishable^underthe provisions of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act. That apart, it is the same the set of facts, which also constitute the complaint before the^management. It is not in doubt that the said facts give cause of action both^{underthepenallawand} also enables the respondent/management to invoke the^{serviceregulationand} initiate departmental proceedings.

¶114

The fact remains that the allegations to be investigated by the jurisdictional police and to be enquired into by a^Court of Law and the allegations to be enquired into by the disciplinary^{authorityareoneandthe} same and the incident having occurred within the premises^{ofthefactoryand} more particularly in the chambers of the complainant,^{thesameprobabilizes} that the same set of witnesses and evidence would be placed before both the investigating authorities/Courts of Law and in the^{proposedenquiry.} It is not in

¶115

GN,J & HN,J 7 W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶116

in the framing of a charge sheet dispute that the investigation would culminate in Court of Law. The and adjudication of the same by a and filing of the same would also be similarly placed before an enquiry said evidences and material the law as evolved by the officer who may also be a lay person. In that view cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (1 Supra) Apex Court, more particularly in and others^ clearly sets apart the case and G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat where the delinquent employee is proceeded on a set of charges that are which charges are to be proved similar to the charge in the criminal trial and material both before the Court of set of witnesses and evidentiary by the same of the Court of Law would law and before the enquiry officer. The findings authority/employer in the be canvassed before the disciplinary necessarily wake of a favorable verdict by the Law Courts.

¶117

set of not far to seek. The same The reasons for the same are 9) material would be appreciated by a allegations, witnesses and evidentiary would be appreciated by trained Judicial officer on the one hand and the same on the other hand and it an enquiry officer, who is not a legally trained person & witnesses by the Law Courts is inevitable that appreciation of the evidences than the similar exercise by a nonhas to be placed on a higher pedestal untrained layman. It is probably in^{suchpeculiarcircumstances,the} judicial & that the disciplinary Hon’ble Apex Court^hasdeemed it just and necessary await the findings of the criminal Court. proceedings

¶118

^ (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446

¶119

GN,J & HN,J 8 W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶120

by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony 10) The law as laid down been case (1 Supra) and G.M.Tank case (3 supra) has subsequently bench consisting of three judges of the Hon’ble Apex appreciated by a larger Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad vs. Inspector General,^{CentralIndustrial} the Hon’ble Apex Court after Security Force and Another , wherein legal components of the conundrum has appreciating the factual^and laid down in M. Paul Anthony categorically upheld the correctness of law as Prasad case (4 case (1 Supra) and the Hon’ble Apex court in Shashi Bhushan supra) has been pleased to observe and hold in ‘Para 20’ as under;

¶121

20 The judgment in M. Paul Anthony case (supra) on which the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance^wasacase where a question arose for consideration as to whether t departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case on the basis of same sets of facts and evidence can be continued simultaneously and this Court answered in para 22 as^under: The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their^{beingconducted} simultaneously, though separately.

¶122

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal^casearebased on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in^thecriminal nature which case against the delinquent employee is of a grave involves complicated questions of law and fact, it^{wouldbedesirable} to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. criminal case is grave and fan Whether the nature of a charge in a , ^ . whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved^mthat case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence^{and matena}

¶123

(2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 979

¶124

GN,J & HN,J 9 W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶125

collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the chargesheet

¶126

(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (Hi) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings^butdue regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental^proceedings cannot be unduly delayed,

¶127

(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal^isbeing unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even^iftheywere stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at^anearly date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his^honourmaybe vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration^{may get} rid of him at the earliest"

¶128

In the above background, we have appreciated the^{rulinguponwhich} reliance has been placed by the Respondents. Paras^{3,6,7and8readsas}

¶129

under;

¶130

'3. The facts of the instant dispute as they emanate^{fromtherecord} are:-

¶131

6 Three different FIRs stood registered against him,^{underwhichhewas} . arrested but later released on bail. In his written^{showcausetothis} Memorandum, the Delinquent employee contended that^{thedisciplinary} proceedings should be either dropped or dosed since criminal cases were pending him, arising from the same set of transactions.

¶132

The appeiiant-bank proceeded to appoint an inquiry^{officerwho,mhis} report, submitted that three out of four charges stood established. The Delinquent Employee, again denying the charges, filed^{aresponsetothat} but was eventually dismissed from the services at the^bank, vide the order of dismissal dated 28th March 2003. The departmental^appealfiled by him, after due opportunity of hearing, was dismissed^on16thAugust 2004.

¶133

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the departmental appeal,^{thedelinquent} employee filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12 of 2005^{beforetheGauhati} High Court. The question before the said Court was:^{whether,mviewof} the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 20023,^{thedisciplinary} proceedings against the delinquent employee (respondent)^hereinought to have been stayed or not"

¶134

GNJ & HNJ 10 W.A.No.467of2024 •

¶135

The above paras would reveal that facts on hand and^{thefactsinvolved} in the ruling, as recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, are at a complete variance. In the instant case, the appellant has approached^{thisCourtatthe} stage of framing of articles of charges. On the contrary, the facts recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’s case (2 supra)^{wouldrevealthatthe} delinquent employee had participated in the enquiry and thereafter has proceeded to contest the correctness of the enquiry. In those circumstances. the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold in paras 31 to 35 as recorded in paragraph 6 hereinabove.

¶136

This Court has no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Zadenga’s case (2 supra). Whereas, as noted by this bench, the facts are at variance with the facts involved in the said case. A close perusal of the above ruling does not also disclose any observations^whichwould derogate from law laid down by the Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony’s Case (1 supra) and as upheld by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s case.

¶137

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case, which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is allowed in part. The order of the learned single judge is set aside. There shall be stay of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 till filing of the charge sheet by the jurisdictional police in FIR No.7 of 2024 of Steel Plant Police Station, Visakhapatnam

¶138

¶139

GN,J & HN,J 11 W.A.No.467 of 2024

¶140

f. y

¶141

Commissionerate, and examination & cross examination^{ofallthewitness.} In the event, charges and witnesses are different as noted by^thelarger benchⁱⁿ Shashi Bhushan Prasad’s Case, it shall be open for the Respondent-Employer to proceed with the enquiry strictly in accordance^withlaw.

¶142

With the above observation, the Writ Appeal stands^{partlyallowed.}

¶143

JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶144

JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶145

19.06.2024 ARB

Shaik Mahaboob Peera, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Mahaboob Peera, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Naga Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bolleddu Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dasi Kullayappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Subhan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Durgampati Subrahmanyam Vs the State of Ap

Venkatagiri Lavanya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh