Allowed

The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, v. a.Karunanidhi

Telangana HC28 Aug 2012SA/158/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal held that the civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a disciplinary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority passes a final order, as the CC&A Rules provide a self-contained alternative remedy via appeal and revision.

What did the court decide?

The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal stand closed.

The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Vs a.Karunanidhi — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

SECOND APPEAL No.158 OF 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

The defendants in O.S.No.652 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, are the appellants herein.

¶5

2. The plaintiff was an Attender of the appellants and for certain misconduct with a lady while he was on duty on 10.10.2001, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the plaintiff was suspended. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was ordered. After framing necessary charges and explanation of the plaintiff was called for, some documents were sought by the plaintiff and they were not completely given.

¶6

3. The substance of the contention of the plaintiff is that there was a violation of Rule 20(4) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (APCS (CC&A) Rules) and enquiry was not conducted properly; a criminal case was also pending; the Enquiry Officer was appointed against the Rules before submission of the written statement of the plaintiff, which is not legal and an enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The victim left the enquiry abruptly and she was not cross-examined. There is no legal and acceptable evidence and report was submitted by the enquiry officer and memo was issued to the plaintiff on 09.05.2002 calling upon his objections to the enquiry report. Challenging the said memo and challenging the process of enquiry, the suit was filed.

¶7

4. Defendants have denied much of the allegations and contended that it was the plaintiff that was non-co-operative in the enquiry and did

¶8

not properly availed the opportunity given to him. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the suit is not maintainable.

¶9

5. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below has passed a decree holding that the enquiry report dated 09.05.2002 is bad and as against that, the defendants have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.84 of 2008 and the VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi, has also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed.

¶10

6. After hearing both sides, the following substantial questions of law were framed.

¶11

1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable and whether the civil Court has got jurisdiction to grant relief?

¶12

2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is without jurisdiction?

¶13

7. POINTS:

¶14

Evidently, as can be seen from the allegations in the plaint and also the contention of the plaintiff, there is no dispute about the application of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 to the employees of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD). In fact, the Courts below have not properly applied themselves to consider the jurisdictional aspect of the Courts. The Courts below have not applied themselves as to whether the Civil Court can entertain a suit challenging the enquiry report even before a final order is passed by the competent authority when alternative remedy effectively is provided by the CC&A Rules. It is fundamental to note that whenever a form of appeal or revision is provided comprehensively in any Rules or statute, then the

¶15

general principle of approaching the civil court does not enure to the benefit even before the final order is passed by the competent authority. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai and others vs. State of Madhya

¶16

Pradesh and anothe r^[1] , wherein the Supreme Court has exhaustively dealt with the ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil Court. The said judgment has been followed in subsequent judgments and in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Krishna Kant and others^[2] , wherein the Supreme Court has considered several aspects of the jurisdiction for the disputes under Industrial Disputes Act, which was also considered in the judgments reported in R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Deen Dayal Sharma^[3] and Chandra Kant Tukaram Nikam Vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad^[4] .

¶17

8. The legal position is whenever the statute provides a substantial relief to ventilate the grievances or violation of the Rules, the civil Court jurisdiction is ousted. Evidently, under the scheme of CC&A and Conduct rules an enquiry is conducted under Rule 20 of the CC&A Rules for imposing a major penalty after issuing the charge memo and thereafter as against the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority an appeal is provided under Rule 33 of the CC&A Rules and thereafter revision is also provided under Rule 40 of the CC&A Rules. Therefore, when these rules are self-contained and when the final order on the basis of an enquiry report was not passed, the approach of the plaintiff to the civil Court for adjudication of the tenability of the enquiry report is not permissible. If ultimately after a final order is passed and if any cause of action survives under the ordinary law with regard to the violation of principles of natural justice, then a civil suit

¶18

may lie. In the judgment reported in Ramendra Kishore Biswas Vs. State of Tripura^[5] , Supreme Court was dealing with a suit filed after dismissal from the service and found that the suit is maintainable. But, however, in this case even before submitting the explanation and the final order from the disciplinary authority, the suit has been filed and the Courts below without applying themselves to the legal aspect have readily decreed the suits. At this stage when the suits were filed, the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted impliedly and consequently, the judgments passed by the Courts below are not sustainable.

¶19

9. Though the appointment of the enquiry officer and initiation of the disciplinary proceedings were challenged, the trial Court after considering the EXs.A.3 and A.6 found that the contention of the plaintiff is not tenable. Consequently, there is no violation of the CC&A Rules in initiating the enquiry and in such cases, the original jurisdiction of the Court cannot be exercised.

¶20

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶21

_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶22

Date:28.08.2012 INL

¶23

[1] (1968) 3 SCR 662

¶24

[2] (1995) 5 SCC 75 [3] 2010-Supreme-3-718

¶25

[4] 2002-AIR(SC)-0-997

¶26

[5] 1999-LLN-1-300

The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, v. a.Karunanidhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, v. a.Karunanidhi

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

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs Pujari Naga Subbamma

Malluvalasa Mavullayya (Died) Vs Atava Tirupatirao

Mekala Sai Prasad Vs Shaik Mahaboob sab [died]

Mareedu Gopalaswamy (died) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shivraj (Died Per L.Rs) Vs K.Mohanlal

B.Prema Raju Vs M.v.Satyanarayana Reddy