Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Pratap

Telangana HC12 Mar 2012WA/195/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court dismissed the management's appeal against a single judge's order directing a disciplinary enquiry for a terminated Field Assistant under NREGS. The court held that subsequent guidelines apply and retained the lower order on public policy grounds regarding back wages, though no costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; appellant directed to comply with lower court order for disciplinary enquiry; no order as to costs.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs S… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No.195 of 2012

¶4

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah)

¶5

Challenging the order dated 26-08-2011 passed in W.P.No.23998 of 2011, this writ appeal is filed.

¶6

For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent will be referred to as Management and Workman respectively.

¶7

The facts of the case, in brief, are:

¶8

The workman was appointed as Field Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) for Dharoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Alleging that he has been absenting for the review meeting on every Monday without prior permission, that he failed to submit musters to technical assistants on every Saturday and that he has not provided work to the coolies as per the guidelines of NREGS, the management issued show-cause notice dated 12-08-2009 and asked him to submit explanation within three days, as to why his services should not be terminated. The workman did not submit any explanation, and his services were terminated by notice dated 07-09-2009. In the termination notice dated 07-09-2009, the workman was given opportunity to make representation to the Project Director, District Water Management Agency. However, the workman, without exhausting the remedy provided in the said notice, filed W.P.No.23998 of 2011 before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed following the order passed in W.P.No.14121 of 2009, directing the Management to conduct disciplinary enquiry as per

¶9

the guidelines issued in Circular No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009, dated 27-01-2010 and the Rules laid down vide G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 09-032010. Challenging the same, this writ appeal is filed by the Management.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management submits that though no prejudice would be caused to the Management if the disciplinary enquiry is conducted as per the guidelines framed in the aforesaid Circular and G.O, but however, the said guidelines were made subsequent to the order of removal of the workman and, hence they have no application to the case on hand.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the workman was terminated from service without any disciplinary enquiry, and the learned Single Judge rightly passed the impugned order directing the appellant to conduct disciplinary enquiry. He further submits that the workman would not claim back wages from the date of removal till the date of his reinstatement.

¶12

We have perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. As there were no guidelines prescribing the procedure for removal, the Government issued guidelines in Circular No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009, dated 17-01-2010 and the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 09-03-2010. This Court, in W.P.No.14121 of 2009 and batch, examined identical matters and indicated the procedure that must be followed for termination of services of such employees. The learned Single Judge following the order passed in W.P.No.14121 of 2009 allowed the writ petition setting aside the removal order dated 07-092009 and directed the appellant Management to follow the said guidelines and therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the learned

¶13

Single Judge is illegal and unsustainable.

¶14

However, as the learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the workman will not claim back wages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, we dismiss this writ appeal, and direct the appellant Management to comply with the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J

¶16

________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J

¶17

Date : 12-03-2012 Prv

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Pratap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Pratap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Veera Raghuvulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Chinna Narshima Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its

Battepati Ramamohan Rao Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

P. Eswaraiah, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

Andhra Pradesh Public Servie Commission, Vs T.V. Chalapathi Rao

The Superintending Engineer, Vs r. Suryanarayana