Allowed

S Bhavani Shankar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2024WP/20193/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Deputy Executive Engineer suspended on a District Collector's letter alleging manhandling of the Municipal Commissioner challenged the suspension for lack of notice. Holding that audi alteram partem required notice and hearing before suspension, the court set aside the suspension order and remitted the matter to the authority to issue notice and pass fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned suspension proceedings No.178/CS2/2023 dated 31.08.2024 set aside; matter remitted to 3rd respondent to issue notice and pass appropriate orders; no costs; pending IAs closed.

S Bhavani Shankar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 20193 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

S Bhavani Shankar, S/o.Sri Rama Murthy Aged about 60 years Occ Deputy Executive Engineer, Pithapuram Municipality, Pithapuram533450, East Godavari District, AP R/o. High School Road, Surya Nagar Amalarapuram-533201,East Godavari District, A.P.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, AP Secretariat Buildings, IGC-Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.-522237

¶11

The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration,^Directorof Municipal Administration (CDMA-AP) Prime hill crest, 4*^ floor. Near DGP office. Near Ultratech Ready Mix Plant, Vaddeswaram Village Mangalagiri, AP, Pin-522502

¶12

The Engineer in Chief, O/o the PH and ME Department, Tadepalli Guntur District 522 501, A.P.

¶13

The Regional Director-Cum-Appellate, Commissioner of Municipal Administration, 79-13-1, Syamala Nagar officers colony, Rajamahendravaram-533103 East Godavari District, A.P

¶14

The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Circle Department, Gorakshanapeta, Andhra Nagar, Twin Reservoir compound, Rajamahendravaram-533101 East Godavari District, A.P.

¶15

The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Pithapuram Pithapuram533450, East Godavari Dist., A.P.

¶16

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Health Dept., Kakinada District A.P.-533001

¶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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in suspending the petitioner from the services of Deputy Executive Engineer, Pithapuram Municipality with immediate effect from 31-08-2024 and he shall continue to be so until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings through Proceedings No.178/CS2/2023 dated 31-082024 issued by the 3rd respondent is unjust and contrary to law and against the Principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the said suspension order Proceedings No.178/CS2/2023 dated 31-08-2024 by permitting the petitioner to resume his duties as Deputy Executive Engineer, Pithapuram Municipality.

¶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 set aside the said suspension order Proceedings NO.I78/CS2/2023 dated 31-08-2024 by permitting the petitioner to resume his duties as Deputy Executive Engineer, Pithapuram Municipality.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.GANI REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents 2, 3, 4 & 6: SRI J.DILEEP KUMAR,

¶24

SC for MUNICIPALITIES

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR SERVICES - IV

¶26

The Court made the following order:

¶27

¶28

APHC010394232024

¶29

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

¶30

[3333]

¶31

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 20193/2024

Between;

S Bhavani Shankar

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1.KGANI REDDY

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶44

1.GP FORMUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶45

2.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia} seeking the following relief:-

¶50

“....to issue a writ order or direction more particularly^one In the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in suspending the petitioner from the services of Deputy Executive Engineer, Pithapuram Municipality with immediate effect from 31.08.2024 and he shall continue to be so until the conclusion of the discipiinary proceedings through Proceedings No.178/CS2/2023^{dated31.08.2024} issued by the 3"'^ respondent is unjust and contrary to law and against the Principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the said suspension order Proceedings No.178/CS2/2023 dated 31.08.2024 by permitting the petitioner to resume his duties as Deputy Executive Engineer Pithapuram Municipality....”

¶51

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Work Inspector in the Public Health Department and subsequently promoted as Assistant Engineer on 13.08.1990 in Amalapuram Municipality. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer on 07.04.2022 at Pithapuram Municipality.

¶52

The grievance of the petitioner is that, he was suspended vide proceedings No.178/CS2/2023, dated 31.08.2024 issued by the 3 rd respondent without issuing any notice.

¶53

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that only basing upon the letter vide No.D.O.Ref.Estt/Admn.3/178/2024, dated 31.08.2024 addressed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kakinada District, the petitioner has been placed under suspension even without calling for an explanation from him. in the letter addressed by the District Collector, it was

¶54

¶55

Stated that the petitioner has crossed limits and reported to physical manhandling against the Commissioner. As this behaviour is highly unprofessional on the part of the petitioner and shown the Government in a very bad light, the Collector & District Magistrate, Kakinada District, Kakinada has informed that it is imperative that the petitioner be suspended with immediate effect and that a departmental inquiry be initiated against him on this issue. The learned counsel further argued that basing on the letter addressed by the District Collector, the respondent issued the proceedings impugned. He further argued that the District Collector do not have any i authority or jurisdiction to recommend the respondents^to suspend him with immediate effect. However, it is also the case of the petitioner that before suspending the petitioner, the respondents have not issued any show-cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner and even without hearing the petitioner on the incident that happened on 31.08.2024, the petitioner was straight away suspended in exercise of the provisions under Rule 8(1) of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1991, which reads as under:

¶56

(8) (1) A member of a Service may be placed under suspension from service,

¶57

or is pending'^or’^'^^'^'''^^'^^ pmcaed/ng against him is^contemplated (b) where in the opinion of the authority competent to place the Government servant under suspension, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or

¶58

¶59

The proviso omitted, (G.O.Ms.No.417, GA (Ser,C) Dept, dt: 24-08-94)

¶60

Servant may be placed under suspension from service even if the offence for which he the discharge of his official duties^{waschargeddoesnothavebearingon}

¶61

¶62

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department has informed^{thisCourtthat} the District Collector has the power under Rule 13(2-A)^{oftheCCARulesto} recommend suspension, which can be done in accordance with Rule 8 of the CCA Rules. Rule 13(2-A) of the CCA Rules pertains to the suspension of Mandal Parishad Development Officers, Divisional Panchayat Officers, Extension Officers (Panchayats), Extension Officers (Rural Development), and Executive Officers (Gram Panchayats).

¶63

A perusal of the said impugned proceedings dated 31.08.2024, it can be observed that the said impugned proceedings were issued basing upon the letter addressed by the Collector and District Magistrate,^{KakinadaDistricton} 31.08.2024, wherein it is stated that the petitioner^has crossed limits and reported to physical manhandling against the Commissioner, as the said behaviour is highly unprofessional on the part of the petitioner. However, the respondents before issuance of the said impugned proceedings have not issued any show-cause notice calling for an explanation and affording an opportunity as to what has happened on 31.08.2024,^which is in violation of Audi alteram Partem” as it is the basic concept of the principles of natural justice.

¶64

‘Audi alteram partem' means ‘hear the other side’,^or‘no man^shouldbe condemned unheard’ or ‘both the sides must be heard before passing any order’. Generally, this maxim includes two elements; (i) Notice; and (ii) Hearing.

¶65

¶66

Before taking any action, the affected party must be given a notice to show cause as to why the action shall not be taken against him. It is a sine qua non of the right of fair hearing. Any order passed without giving notice is against the principles of natural justice and is void ab initio. The right to notice means the right of being known. A notice must contain the time, place and date of hearing, and proposed action against the person. All these things should be included in a notice to make it proper and adequate. Non-issue of the notice or any defective service of the notice do not affect the jurisdiction of the authority but violates the principles of natural justice.

¶67

The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, firstly; a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard, secondly: the concerned authority should follow fair and transparent procedure and lastly; the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matters by reasoned order or speaking order, this has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad [vide: “Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. M/s. Shukla^”] .

¶68

By applying the principle laid down in the above Judgment^asnonotice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order as the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶69

(2010) 4 see 785

¶70

¶71

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings No.178/CS2/2023, dated 31.08.2024 of the 3'^^ respondent and the matter is remitted back to the 3'^'^ respondent^and issue notice to the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶72

To.

¶73

Sd/- M.SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY| REGISTRAR

¶74

//TRUE COPY//

¶75

SECTIO N OFFICER

¶76

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P.Secretariat Buildings, IGC-Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.-522237

¶77

The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Director of Municipal Administration (CDMA-AP) Prime hill crest, 4th floor Near DGP office. Near Ultratech Ready Mix Plant, Vaddeswaram Village Mangalagiri, AP, Pin-522502

¶78

The Engineer in Chief, O/o the PH and ME Department, Tadepalli Guntur District 522 501, A.P.

¶79

The Regional Director-Cum-Appellate, Commissioner of Municipal Administration, 79-13-1, Syamala Nagar officers colony, Rajamahendravaram-533103 East Godavari District, A.P

¶80

The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Circle Department, Gorakshanapeta, Andhra Nagar, Twin Reservoir compound Rajamahendravaram-533101 East Godavari District, A.P.

¶81

The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Pithapuram Pithapuram533450, East Godavari Dist., A.P.

¶82

III Engineer, Public Health Dept., Kakinada District, A.M.- 533001 8. One CC to Sri K Gani Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9^ One CC to Sri S.Dileep Kumar, Sc for Municipalities [OPUC] to GP for Services - IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 11. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 12. Two CD Copies RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.20193 of 2024

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

S Bhavani Shankar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Bhavani Shankar 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

Simma Usha, Srikakulam Dist.,a.P. Vs the Dist.Project Director, Woman,Child,Srikakulam, and 5 Otrs.

P. Geetha Rani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

B.Subba Reddy, Krishna Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Endowments,Hyd.,and 3 Otrs.

S.R.M.Rama Bhupathi Dev, Wg Dist Vs Prl. Secretary, Agrl. * Co-Op Dept., Hyd and 2 Others

Alavala Rohini Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kotapati Lakshminarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh