Remanded

G v. Ramana v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Nov 2024WP/2850/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed impugned orders of removal from service for the petitioner, holding them illegal due to procedural irregularities and lack of reasoned findings. It remanded the case for a fresh enquiry affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded for fresh enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing; appropriate reasoned order to be passed.

G v Ramana Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 2850 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

G V RAMANA, S/o.Krishna, aged about 42 years, P.C.807 HQ.Coy, 5th Bn, APSP, Viziayanagaram, R/o.Siripuram Village, Srikakulam District532168

¶8

...Petitioner AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by PrI.Secretary, Home (Ser.ll) Dept. Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur.

¶10

The Inspector General of Police, APSP.Bns, Mangalagiri,^Guntur District.

¶11

The Dy.lnspector General of Police-Ill, , APSP.Bns,^Kurnool 4. The Commandant, , 5th Bn, APSP, Vizianagaram

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

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 Writ or Order more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Govt.Memo.No.15505/Ser.ll/A2/2017,^dated29-06- 2018 rejecting petitioner's claim for re-inducting to duty purely on technical reasons though it is a superior authority and affirming the punishment of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary, appellate^{andrevisional} authorities vide impugned Procdgs.No.C.No.41/OEPR/A2/2013, dt.15112014,R.0.0.No.39/2015 (C.No.05/Appeal/2015, dt.05-03-2015) and Rc.No.A3/66/Rev/2015-16, (H.O.O.No.421/2016), dt.28-12-2016 issued by the 4th, 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively as all^{theauthoritieshave}

¶14

totally failed to consider the actual circumstances of absence and as such all the above impugned proceedings are illegal and to be set aside in terms of the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2106/2012 and r consequently declare that he is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits which ,he is entitled had he not been suffered from the punishment of removal and pass

¶15

lA NO: 2 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 to grant leave for filing reply affidavit in the Writ Petition No. 2580 of 2020 and pass

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶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 respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by suspending the impugned Govt.Memo.No.15505/Ser.ll/A2/2017 dated 29-06-2018 and impugned Procdgs.No.C.No.41/OEPR/A2/2013, dt.15-11-2014, R.0.0.No.39/2015 (C.No.05/Appeal/2015 dt.05-03-2015) and Rc. No. A3/66/Rev/2015-16 (H2O.O.NO.421/2016) dt.28-12-2016 issued by the 4'^ 3'"^ and 2"*^ respondents respectively pending disposal of the above W.P. and pass

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 receive the counter affidavit copies on record by allowing leave petition in the writ petition in the interest of justice^andto pass

¶21

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A SREEDHAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER :

/ APHC010011832020

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

¶28

[3310]

¶29

WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 2850 OF 2020

Between:

G.V.Ramana

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.ASREEDHAR

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:-

¶44

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

¶45

seeking the following relief:

¶46

" to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of mandamus call for the impugned Govt.Memo.No.15505/Ser.ll/A2/2017^, dated 29.06.2018 rejecting petitioner's claim for re-inducting to duty purely on technical reasons though it is a superior authority and affirming the punishment of removal from service imposed by the disciplinary, appellate^{andrevisionalauthorities} vide impugned proceedings No. C.No.41/OEPR/A2/2013, dated 15.11.2014, R.O.O.No.39/2015 (C.No.05/Appeal/2015, dated 05.03.2015)^{andRc.No.A3/66/Rev/} 2015-16, (H.O.O.No.421/2016), dt.28.12.2016 issued by the respondents, 2, 3 and 4 respectively as all the authorities have totally failed to consider the actual

¶47

¶48

circumstances of absence and as such all the above impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside in terms of the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2106 of 2012 and consequently declare that he is^{entitledtobereinstatedinto} service with all consequential benefits which he is entitled had be not been suffered from the punishment of removal and pass such other^{orders....”}

¶49

¶50

Heard Mr.A.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner^and Mrs. Sudeepti Potiuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mines and Geology for the respondents.

¶51

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner^{wouldcontendthat} while working as Police Constable under the control of 4'^ respondent has applied a leave for a period of 90 days, which was sanctioned. Thereafter, he fell sick and bed ridden, therefore he extended the leave by informing the department. While he was on prolonged leave, an order of deserter reported to have been issued by the 4*'^ respondent vide order^dated 19.11.2012 followed by a Charge Memo dated 19.02.2014 and also enquiry has been initiated. But the petitioner could not attend the enquiry as he was in Hospital as is evident from the Medical Certificates and concluded the enquiry as exparte held that the charges were proved. Based on enquiry report, the punishment of removal imposed by the 4’^ respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 15.11.2014, which was challenged vide Appeal and Revision before the respondents 2 and 3, both the authorities without following due procedure and proper opportunity to the petitioner dismissed the same by confirming the order passed by the 4'*' respondent, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to^befiled.

¶52

¶53

/ 4. Per contra, 4'^ respondent filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended that in view of absence without leave from duty for more than 21 days amounts to desertion, after which the officer will be declared as deserted. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared^{asadeserterwith} effect from 23.10.2012 AN i.e from the date of absent vide office D.O.No.1042/2012 (Lr.No.226/A5/2012) dated 19.11.2012 duly mentioning^that if he has the intention of joining duty he should report before the 4 respondent within two months from the date of desertion or one month from the date of issue of the order declaring him as deserter. The 4'*^ respondent^{hasmadeeffortstoserve} the desertion order and finally the petitioner has acknowledged the desertion order on 05.11.2013. The petitioner did not submit his explanation to the office and did not appear before the 4'^ respondent for personal hearing. Basing on the enquiry report the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect duly treating the desertion period with effect from 23.10.2012 AN to till the date of issue of the removal orders as LWP, vide proceedings dated 15.11.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal and also Revision, which was also rejected by following due procedure. Hence, the writ petition is^{liabletobedismissed.}

¶54

Perused the record.

¶55

As could be seen from the proceedings of the 4*^ respondent dated 15.11.2014 it is stated that since the C.O did not attend to the O.E, the Inquiry Officer has conducted O.E as exparte and submitted his findings in the shape of minute duly holding the charges levelled against the charged officer as

¶56

¶57

proved and awarded with the punishment of ‘removal^{fromservice’fromthe} date of issue of the order. Further, a perusal of the proceedings dated 05.03.2015 issued by the 3'^^ respondent would show^that it is stated that he find no reasons to interfere in to the punishment awarded by the punishing authority, it was correctly acted by the Commandant in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.260, dated 04.09.2003. Therefore, the appeal is considered and rejected. Assailing the same, revision petition preferred^{andthesamewas} also rejected by the 2^^ respondent without mentioning proper reasons vide its order dated 28.12.2016.

¶58

<br>

¶59

As could be seen from all the impugned order would^{showthatthere} is no specific reasons to remove the petitioner from the service and rejected the appeal by the respondents. It is very clear that the respondents have not followed due procedure while dealing with the issue involved in this writ petition and passed blanket order, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶60

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently argued that the reasons clearly mentioned^{inthecounter-affidavit} that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry and he deliberately avoided to attend the enquiry and also receive the notice issued by the 4^*^ respondent. However, the reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit are disappeared in the impugned orders passed by the reasons. In every stage, the respondents have not given proper reasons against the allegations attributed against the petitioner and straight away imposed major penalty^{ofremovalfromservice} vide proceedings dated 15.11.2014, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶61

¶62

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Krushnakant^{B.Parmarv.Unionof} India and Another”^ Wherein it was held that ignoring^{theevidence,onthe} basis of surmises and conjectures, the Inquiry Officer held the charge proved.

¶63

" 24. Though the aforesaid facts noticed by the Appellate Authority but ignoring such facts giving reference of extraneous allegations which were not the part of the charge, dismissed the appeal with following uncalled for observation ”

¶64

In similar circumstances of the case referred supra, the petitioner had not been given any opportunity while conducting enquiry and no^notice has been served on him. When such opportunity of hearing^has not been provided to the petitioner, the respondent authorities^{cannotbeimposedmajor} punishment that too without following due procedure^{ascontemplatedunder} law, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are deserves to be set aside.

¶65

In “Whrilpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade^Marks,Mumbai and Others”^, wherein it was held as follows:-

¶66

“15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to^{entertainornottoentertain} a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon^{itselfcertainrestrictions} once of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not^{tooperateasabarinat} least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition^{hasbeenfieldfor} the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or^{wheretherehasbeena}

¶67

' Civil Appeal No.2106 of2012, dated 15.02.2012 ^(1998) 8 see 1

¶68

¶69

violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged

¶70

In the light of the decision cited supra, the respondents completely ignoring the procedural aspects while rejecting the case of the petitioner and also passed impugned order straight away removed from the service, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence this matter is deserves to be remand back for conducting fresh enquiry against the charges levelled against the petitioner in this case.

¶71

in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the counsel, this Court opined that the matter is remand back to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner, after affording ample opportunity of hearing of the petitioner with documentary evidence submitted by him and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The impugned orders passed by the respondents respectively are declared as illegal and is hereby aside.

¶72

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶73

SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /^SECTION OFFICER

¶74

To,

¶75

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Prl. Secretary,^Home(Ser.ll) Dept., Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur. General of Police, APSP.Bns, Mangalagiri, Guntur

¶76