Allowed

A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., v. K. Gnaneswara Rao

Telangana HC17 Jun 2009WA/554/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a respondent's writ petition challenging an enquiry report against him for misconduct. The Single Judge set aside the guilty report and show cause notice because the enquiry officer failed to examine witnesses after the respondent denied charges. The Court affirmed this, directing a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; Single Judge's order allowing writ petition upheld; Enquiry officer directed to conduct enquiry afresh within three months.

A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Vs K… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO : 554 of 2009

¶7

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/01/2009 in WP NO : 27115 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.)

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, 3-6184, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 The Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., 3-6-184, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

3 The Deputy Executive Engineer (Enquiry Officer), Machilipatnam Division, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

K. Gnaneswara Rao S/o. Sri Raghavaiah A.P. State Housing Corporation, R/o. H.No.15-6-79, Redla Bazar, Old Guntur, Guntur.

¶14

.....RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : MR.C.RAGHU

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari )

¶19

This writ appeal is filed by the A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2009 of the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 27115 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner was allowed.

¶20

The respondent was working as Assistant Engineer at Kollur Mandal, Guntur District. While so, departmental proceedings have been initiated against the respondent on the ground that certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him in execution of weaker Sections Housing Programme in Avanigadda Mandal. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority, appointed an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry into the matter. The enquiry officer after framing the charges, called upon the respondent to submit his written statement. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has given a questionnaire to the respondent/delinquent. The respondent while denying the charges framed against him, pleaded not guilty. However, the enquiry officer seen to have proceeded with the recording of the statement of the respondent and basing on the said statement, he submitted a reporting finding the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and issued show cause notice dated 2.12.2008 to the respondent proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service. The respondent, therefore, filed the aforementioned writ

¶21

petition before the learned single Judge assailing the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Executive Engineer (Enquiry Officer), the 3^rd appellant herein, vide proceedings dated 3.6.2008 and the consequential order of the 2^nd respondent dated 2.12.2008.

¶22

It was contended on behalf of the respondent before the learned single Judge that the enquiry officer, except serving a questionnaire on the respondent, did not follow the procedure. While relying on Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1991, learned counsel has contended that when once the respondent denied the allegations levelled against him, the enquiry officer is bound to examine the witnesses in order to substantiate the allegations levelled against him and the enquiry officer instead of doing that has proceeded with the recording of the statement of the respondent and submitted his report finding the respondent guilty of the charges. He further contended that the disciplinary authority also quite mechanically concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and issued show cause notice dated 2.12.2008 proposing to impose the punishment of removal.

¶23

The learned single judge having heard the leaned counsel for the parties and having perused the questionnaire and the relevant C.C.A. Rules, opined that when once the delinquent denied the allegations, the management employer had to substantiate the same by adducing proper evidence. Accordingly, he disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the report of the enquiry officer as well as the consequential show cause notice issued by the 2^nd appellant proposing imposition of the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved, the department filed the present appeal.

¶24

Sri Meher Chand Noori, learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶25

of Mr. K. Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, has contended that the learned single Judge passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants and even before a counter was filed by them opposing the allegations levelled in the writ petition. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

¶26

There is no dispute about the fact that the enquiry officer has served a questionnaire on the respondent. There is equally no dispute about the fact that the respondent has submitted the questionnaire denying the allegations. Admittedly, when once the respondent denied the charges levelled against him, the management has to substantiate the allegations by adducing evidence. However, in the instant case, the enquiry officer without taking into consideration the said fact, had proceeded to record the statement of the respondent, basing on the same, he submitted a report finding the respondent guilty of the charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority too, without considering the said fact, had accepted the report of the enquiry officer and issued the show cause notice dated 2.12.2008 proposing to impose the punishment of removal.

¶27

Having perused the order of the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that there is no material placed either before the learned single Judge or before us to show that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry as per the procedure, in the absence of which, the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the enquiry report as well as the show cause notice issued proposing the punishment of removal from service.

¶28

We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. However, the enquiry officer shall conduct the enquiry

¶29

afresh in accordance with law and submit report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶31

___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J

¶32

Date: 17^th June, 2009

¶33

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶34

pnb

A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., v. K. Gnaneswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., v. K. Gnaneswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Satyanarayanaraju, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Krishna Murthy, President the Komarada Garllamudi, Vs Rvr Subbaryadu Clerk, The Komarada Garllamudi

The Dharmavanth Junior College Vs Government of A.P.

G. Narasamma Vs M.A. Hafeez

The Divisional Manager, Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,rep.by its Vs The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial