In this writ petition challenging a dismissal order based on serious charges including financial irregularities and malafide appointments, the High Court quashed the order for violating natural justice.
Respondent directed to hold an oral enquiry in accordance with Rule 20 and pass a fresh order within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.NO. 7338 of 2001
Date: 17-02-2011
Between:
Ch. Chandrasekhar
…… petitioner
and
The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation limited
…… Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
W.P.NO. 7338 of 2001
ORDER:
Questioning the order passed by the respondent dated 07-04-2001 as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice, and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is filed.
Facts, to the extent relevant, are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent as a Stenographer on 24-03-1977. He was promoted as Senior Assistant in 1979 and was further promoted as Manager in 1986. He was promoted as the Assistant General Manager in 1990 and Deputy General Manager in 1998. He was placed under suspension on 21-12-1999 on the ground that he was responsible for deposit of Rs.400 lakhs in cooperative banks while he should have deposited it in nationalized banks. Subsequently a charge memo dated 27-12-1999 was issued, in reply to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. It is his grievance that no oral enquiry was held and, based on the charge memo and the explanation, the enquiry officer had arrived at a conclusion of guilt which resulted in a show cause notice being issued on 16-12-2000 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30-12-2000 culminating in the impugned order of dismissal from
service vide proceedings dated 07-04-2001. The charges levelled
against the petitioner read as under:
“CHARGE NO.1:-
That Sri Ch. Chandra Sekhar while working as Assistant General Manager (A&F) of TRICOR has utterly failed to place the service condition of TRICOR and Government for recruitment/appointment for the post of Junior Steno in TRICOR. After getting orders from the then General manager Sri
C. Chenchu Raju, Retired) for sponsoring the list of names for the post of Junior Steno from the Employment Exchange Officer, Hyderabad the correct requisite qualifications for appointment in TRICOR were not sent with malafide intention. In connivance with the above retired General Manager, Sri Ch. Chandra Sekhar, Assistant General Manager (A&F), TRICOR has managed to get the appointment orders to his near relative viz., Smt. N. Kusuma Kumari, as Junior Steno by tilting the rule position.
Later Sri Ch. Chandra Sekhar, Assistant General manager (A&F)/Deputy General Manager (A&F), TRICOR has recommended for regularization and declaration of probation of Smt. N. Kusuma Kumari, Junior Steno ignoring the rule position and note put up by section. In connivance with Sri A. Venkata Rayudu, former General manager, under suspension, he managed to get order for regularization and declaration of probation of Smt. N. Kusuma Kumari, Junior Steno whose appointment is questionable and there by made her eligible for promotion to the next post i.e. Senior Assistant.
CHARGE NO.2:-
That Sri Ch. Chandra Sekhar, Deputy General manager (A&F), TRICOR has drawn huge amounts from TRICOR in the capacity of P.S. to Managing Director, TRICOR, on behalf of Sri T.S. Appa Rao, IAS, former Managing Director, TRICOR unauthorisedly and irregularly, as advances for different purposes i.e., (1) Medical advance, (2) Tour advance and evidently utilized the amounts for self. Therefore the following charges are framed.
1. That Sri Ch. Chandra Sekhar has drawn huge amounts under medical advance intentionally when there was no need on behalf of Sri T.S. Appa Rao, IAS., former Commissioner of Tribal Welfare/Managing Director, TRICOR.
2. 29.06.98 Rs.52,000
3. 23.07.98 Rs. 5,000
4. 10.08.98 Rs.10,000
5. 22.06.99 Rs.20,000
6. 20.07.99 Rs.10,000
Further, he used to keep the following amounts with him for months/years together without remitting to TRICOR’s account. Even after the drawl of the amounts from the O/o. the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, for the amounts drawn as advances from TRICOR. Ex:- In the capacity of P.S. to CTW/MD, TRICOR he has drawn the following amounts from the O/o. the Director of Tribal Welfare in respect of Sri T.S. Appa Rao, IAS, former Commissioner of Tribal Welfare/Managing Director, TRICOR amounting to Rs.59,793/-. But he could able to remit on Rs.36,000/- to TRICOR on 04.03.99.
| 12.08.97 | Rs. 5,076/- |
|---|---|
| 17.12.97 | Rs. 9,026/- |
| 05.02.98 | Rs. 4,389/- |
| 16.03.98 | Rs. 4,018/- |
| 01.06.98 | Rs. 4,563/- |
| 11.08.98 | Rs. 7,781/- |
| 11.09.98 | Rs.10,454/- |
| 05.11.98 | Rs. 6,993/- |
| 04.12.98 | Rs. 7,493/- |
Some times he used to remit small amounts to TRICOR’s account, keeping huge amounts with him with selfish moto.
CHARGE NO.3:-
That, Sri Ch. Chandra Sekhar, Deputy General Manager (A&F) who was worked as P.S. to Managing Director, TRICOR has taken undue advantage to his post/assignment and exercised powers over and above his limits and sometime acted as Managing Director, and taken decisions at his own accord, without any intimatioin to the Managing Director and thus committed breach of trust into his powers vested in him by the Managing Director and other higher officials like General manager and committed grave irregularities and financial embezzlement and cheated the office for the personal gains. Therefore the following charges are framed.
1. He was using two Tata Cellular Connections bearing Nos.23733, 17385 for his personal use unauthorisedly and fraudulently without obtaining permission from the Managing Director prior to installation of Managing Director’s cell phone under corporate scheme on the name of
TRICOR. The above connections were linked up to Managing Director cellular phone which was installed on 09.09.99 under customer No.040850 of TRICOR under corporate scheme. Besides, taking the above irregular connections himself, he provided (1) Tata Cell Phone connection to the other Deputy General Manager (D) Sri S. Sudhir before 09.09.99 and managed to linkup the above connections to Managing Director’s cell phone with malafide intention by keeping the Managing Director, TRICORF i.e., Head of the Institution in dark. This transaction was motivated by selfish interest by exercising the powers beyond his limit without any intimation to the Head of the Office.”
The petitioner, in his explanation to the charge memo, did not dispute the transactions but justified it stating that the Managing Director of TRICOR was also the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare and various circumstances, including the illness of the Managing Director’s father, accident of his daughter, and belated clearance of bills by the Government and the doctors concerned, had resulted in delay in remittances. Though the charge memo dated 18-04-2000 records that action would be taken under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1997 (for short ‘Rules’), it is not in dispute that no oral enquiry was held nor was the detailed procedure prescribed under Rule 20 adhered to.
While the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare would assert that at least with respect to Charge No.2, since the factum of withdrawal of the amount and short remittances is not in dispute, the charge must be held to have been established, Sri M. Surender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, even assuming that the amounts withdrawn and the amounts remitted as reflected under charge No.2 are held to be correct, the justification given by the petitioner thereto is that belated/short remittances was on account of various circumstances including delay on the part of the government agencies and others in clearing the bills etc. for which the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity of producing witnesses in his defence, and to submit documents in justification therefor.
As noted hereinabove, Rule 20 of the Rules prescribes a detailed procedure for conduct of an enquiry with regards charges for which a major penalty may be imposed. In the case on hand, the petitioner has been dismissed from service, which is a major penalty under the Rules and, as such, the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 ought to have been adhered to. Even if it is presumed that the charges levelled are made out from the contents of the charge memo itself, and there is no need for the management to adduce further oral or documentary evidence in this regard more so since, according to them, the petitioner has not disputed these facts, an oral hearing was essential at least to afford the petitioner the opportunity of producing witnesses in his defence and/or marking documents in support of his contention that he was not responsible for the lapses.
Since a charge memo has already been issued, and an explanation has been submitted by the petitioner in reply thereto, it is only proceedings subsequent thereto which necessitate being quashed. The respondent shall hold an oral enquiry, afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of producing witnesses/marking documents in his defence, and thereafter take action in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules. The entire exercise in this regard, culminating in an order being passed by the disciplinary authority shall be completed at the earliest and, in any event, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The charges levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature and, in such circumstances, I see no reason to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on the order of dismissal being quashed, the petitioner would automatically be entitled for back wages. It is made clear that the claim of the petitioner for wages during the period of suspension, and for the period from the date of his dismissal from service till date, shall await the order to be passed by the disciplinary authority on an oral enquiry being held afresh.
Sri M. Surender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would
submit that, in terms of the fundamental rules, on an order of punishment being quashed the employee would be entitled to continued under suspension, and for subsistence allowance. Without expressing any opinion on this contention, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent in this regard. In case such a representation is submitted, the respondent shall take necessary action thereupon in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
_______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
Date: 17-02-2011 YCR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in an oral enquiry before dismissal from service.
Whether the dismissal order violating the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 ought to be quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ch. Chandrasekhar
The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation limited
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
