Dismissed

P. Narasimha S/o Yekaiah v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC4 Apr 2013WP/10229/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging non-renewal of a contract as a junior lineman, holding that the petition was barred by the principle of laches due to a delay of over nine years and the petitioner's failure to exhaust remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage without costs; miscellaneous applications are also dismissed.

P. Narasimha S/o Yekaiah Vs The Chairman… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 10229 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The 48-year-old writ petitioner claims that he has worked as a village electricity worker in the year 1997 and in recognition of his meritorious service as such, he was appointed as a contract junior lineman, by an order passed on 14.10.2002 by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir. He was posted to work under the control of the Assistant Engineer, Operation, Ramannapet, Nalgonda District. It is his claim that from 19.11.2002 Fore Noon onwards, he started functioning as a contract junior lineman and as usual, his services have come for appreciation. However, on 19.09.2003, the Assistant Engineer, Operation, Ramannapet issued a memo to the writ petitioner calling for his explanation as to the reasons why he has unauthorisedly extended a low tension (LT) electric supply line to an agricultural well belonging to Sri Yenugu Narsi Reddy, S/o. Papi Reddy of Yennaram Village illegally, without collecting the necessary charges for providing such an electric energy line. On the basis of this unauthorized act of the writ petitioner, the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir, has drawn a show cause notice on 15.11.2003 as to why his services, as a contract lineman, should not be dismissed as the charge of unauthorized LT line erection in Yennaram Village is held proved. The writ petitioner would assert that on receipt of the said show cause notice, he has filed his explanation thereto on 17.12.2003. All that he would say is, because he comes from the same village and because of the personal animosity of Sri S.Raji Reddy against the petitioner, allegations have been thrown against him, whereas he is not guilty of doing any improper act. The

¶5

petitioner would submit that he has not heard anything thereafter either from the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir or the Assistant Engineer, Operation at Ramannapet. In the meantime, the State has also launched prosecution against the petitioner in connection with some other incident and he was initially arrested and was enlarged on bail on 20.10.2003 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. Ultimately, the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Nalgonda, who tried Criminal Case No.198 of 2004, has acquitted the petitioner, by judgment rendered on 08.01.2007. The reason for acquitting the writ petitioner has been spelt out in paragraph 10 of the said judgment in the following words:

¶6

"Though all the Prosecution witnesses has (have) supported the prosecution case with regard to incident about the commission of theft of aluminum conductor wire from the poles and which was marked as M.O.1. But all the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the accused to connect the accused with this offence, that he was the person who committed theft of M.O.1 from the agricultural well of P.W.3 as all the Prosecution witnesses turned hostile and not supported the prosecution, as such their evidence is not reliable nor believable hence not taken into consideration."

¶7

After this acquittal of the petitioner on 08.01.2007, the writ petitioner kept on going around the offices of the Assistant Engineer, Divisional Electrical Engineer and Superintending Engineer, but not one of these officers has ever bothered to apply his mind and the petitioner has not been reinstated into service. Hence, this Writ Petition is instituted.

¶8

Heard Sri M.Narsimloo, learned counsel for the writ petitioner at great length and Ms. Sridevi, learned counsel deputizing for Sri

¶9

P.Laxma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel who accepted notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶10

Sri M.Narsimloo, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that no final order has been passed, after the writ petitioner has shown cause on 17.12.2003, terminating his employment. Therefore, the respondents are bound to continue the writ petitioner in service. Further, the respondents have not followed the APSEB Employees’ (Clarification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, which were adopted by the respondents for the purpose of inflicting any punishment on the petitioner. For the sheer failure to adhere to the principles of procedural fairness, the action of the respondents becomes untenable and consequently, the petitioner shall be ordered to be taken to duty, inasmuch as the other employees, who stood at par with the writ petitioner, have since been regularized by the respondents and they are all continuing in service of the respondents. It was also urged that since the services of junior linemen are needed, it would only be appropriate that the respondents should reinstate and allow the petitioner to continue for the remainder of his service before he can attain the age of superannuation.

¶11

The learned counsel, Ms. Sridevi, appearing for the respondents, would urge that the event, which had happened in 2003, cannot give any scope for cause of action after a decade. The failure of the petitioner to approach this Court in time and seek to assert his rights is fatal and hence, would suggest that this Writ Petition should not be entertained at all.

¶12

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner’s services have been engaged, as a contract junior lineman, through the proceedings of the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir, dated 14.10.2002

¶13

and it clearly spells out that the contract is for a period of one year and since the petitioner has joined the duty on 19.11.2002, the period of currency of contract expired by 18.11.2003. Obviously, the writ petitioner has neither solicited extension of the currency of the said contract nor did he enter into any fresh contract of employment with the respondents. By 15.11.2003, the date on which the show cause notice was drawn by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir, the contract of employment entered by the petitioner was alive. Since even a contractual employee’s services can be terminated only after adhering to the principles of natural justice, the Assistant Engineer, Operation, has initiated necessary action, obtained the explanation of the petitioner, conducted an enquiry and filed an adverse report before the Divisional Electrical Engineer, who based thereupon, issued the show cause notice dated 15.11.2003. As was already adverted to supra, the reply furnished by the petitioner on 17.12.2003 does not raise any issue on merits of the subject matter. It merely asserts that a false complaint has been engineered against the petitioner by the resident of the same village, where the petitioner also lives, because of the animosity, which the complainant had towards the petitioner. To say the least, the explanation offered by the petitioner on 17.12.2003 is way off the mark. It does not advert to the allegation thrown against the petitioner at all. He never made any attempt to deny or dispute or challenge the veracity of the allegations levelled against him except making an allegation against the complainant that the complaint was an engineered one because of personal animosity. A complaint becomes sustainable depending upon the contents thereof. It does not become stale or sterile, if the complainant has animosity against another individual. It is the contents of the complaint, which will be vital and significant for initiating action and the personal animosity of

¶14

the complainant is of no legal significance in matters of disciplinary control over the employees. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has failed to show a proper cause to the notice issued on 15.11.2003 by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir. It is obvious that the contract of employment, which has come to an end on 19.11.2003, was not renewed because of failure of the petitioner to satisfy the Divisional Electrical Engineer by showing a proper cause. Therefore, the question of directing the respondents to enter into a fresh contract of employment with the petitioner now at this distant point of time, would not simply arise. The petitioner kept quiet from December 2003 onwards and after lapse of nine years, he thought it appropriate to serve a legal notice on the respondents and then after three months’ gap, approached this Court. Therefore, this Writ Petition is hit by principle of latches on the part of the writ petitioner. His own conduct in not asserting his rights properly and in time comes in the way of this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

Sri M.Narsimloo, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, realizing the difficulty, would urge that the writ petitioner is so poor that he could ill afford to indulge in an expensive litigation as he has been subjected to the grind of criminal prosecution by the State. Therefore, the delay in the writ petitioner approaching this Court should not be put against him.

¶16

Even this contention lacks any merit. I can understand, some of the financial constraints could be an impediment for a party to approach a Court of law in time. That is the precise reason why for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no specific time limit is prescribed, but however, it is always

¶17

appropriate that a party must approach a Court of law with the reasonable expedition and within a reasonable period of time. Nine plus years cannot be construed, by any stretch of compassion or reasoning, to be a reasonable period of time and hence, I am not able to accede to the request that the Writ Petition should be entertained. This apart, free legal aid is provided for all those people, who are economically distressed and socially backward. All they need to do is to approach the legal aid cell, which will bear the entire expenditure and provide for the services of a qualified and well-trained lawyer as well, free of cost. Therefore, the distressful economic conditions alone of the writ petitioner cannot be said as a factor for the inordinate delay indulged in by him in instituting the Writ Petition.

¶18

The other contention that after the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal court, the respondents are bound to take the same into account and consideration and order for reinstatement of the writ petitioner is equally meritless. As we have noticed supra, the writ petitioner has been prosecuted by the State in C.C.No.198 of 2004 for an altogether different offence alleged against him, namely theft of electric energy conductor wire from the poles. That has nothing to do with the controversy at hand, which formed the subject matter of show cause notice dated 15.11.2003. Further, as already noticed from the judgment rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda in C.C.No.198 of 2004, the petitioner has been extended the benefit of doubt by the said Court, inasmuch as the witnesses of the prosecution have failed to identify the writ petitioner as the one, who has committed theft of the electrical wire. Therefore, I am not inclined to construe the judgment rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda in C.C.No.198 of 2004 as the one acquitting the writ petitioner on merits. Even otherwise, the said case has no

¶19

connection whatsoever with the incident, which formed the basis for the show cause notice.

¶20

Looked at from any angle, this Writ Petition does not deserve any consideration and accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage, but however, without costs.

¶21

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.

¶22

_____________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶23

04^th April, 2013

¶24

siva/Ksld

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 10229 of 2013

¶27

DATE: 04.04.2013

¶28

siva/Ksld

P. Narasimha S/o Yekaiah v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Narasimha S/o Yekaiah v. The Chairman and Managing Director

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

C. Shekar Vs The A.P. Genco

Mr. Surya Prakash Vs The Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd.

Md.Rizwan Ali Khan Vs The A.P. Genco

Bommaigari Saraswathi W/o Kavali Mallesh Vs The District Collector, Anantapur

Chindada Nageswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dubba Dharma Rao, S/o.D.Yerraiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation