Dismissed

B. Suresh Babu v. Commissioner of Industries of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Sept 2014WP/23485/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging office orders that altered work distribution among Additional Directors in the Industries Department. The Court held that administrative exigencies justified bypassing the Additional Director to improve efficiency, rejecting the claim that it violated service conditions.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed and pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.

B. Suresh Babu Vs Commissioner of Industries of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.23485 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 28.7.2014, in O.A.No.4507 of 2014 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶6

2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to declare the office orders, dated 7.7.2014 and 11.7.2014, as illegal and arbitrary, and to quash the same, and consequently, to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein to strictly follow the work distribution as per G.O.Ms.No.710, dated 19.5.1981, and duties and functions entrusted in G.O.Ms.No.42 Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 5.5.2011, G.O.Ms.No.319, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 29.12.2004, G.O.Ms.No.267, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 27.6.2002, G.O.Ms.No.270, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 27.6.2002, and Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Single Window Act, 2002.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the aforementioned Original Application holding that the proceedings under challenge are only regarding distribution of business in the internal administration of the department and that it was offending neither the status, nor conditions of service, of the applicant as an Additional Director. Challenging the same, applicant filed the present Writ Petition.

¶8

4. Petitioner/applicant is working as Additional Director in the office

¶9

of Commissioner of Industries in Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. His grievance is that respondent No.1/Commissioner of Industries took away all his powers as Additional Director under several statutory provisions and also under several Government Orders issued previously; that the Commissioner is not entitled to pass office order, dated 7.7.2014, which reads that in the combined erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, there were two Additional Directors and nine Joint Directors in the office of the Commissioner wherein subjects were distributed among them basing on priorities of the Government and importance of the schemes; that files from Joint Directors/Programme Officers were routed through the Additional Director to the Commissioner; that after division of composite State, now, the State of Andhra Pradesh has one Additional Director and five Joint Directors and that one Additional Director alone cannot monitor all the Government Programmes for effective implementation of the schemes/activities of the department and time bound processing of the files and therefore, instructed the Additional Director and Programme Officers in the Central Office to send the files pertaining to their subjects directly to the Commissioner for taking quick decisions and disposals, as given in the work distribution order attached to the said office order. In view of the same, the petitioner was allotted subjects of Mega Projects, Planning, Finance and Infrastructure projects. Later, the subject of Mega Projects was taken away in the subsequent order, dated 11.7.2014, from the petitioner.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant contended that the Government issued a manual relating to the powers and functions of the Additional Directors and the Commissioner has no power to change the powers of the Additional Directors by virtue of the impugned office orders; that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to issue those proceedings. He also relied upon a decision reported in P.K.Chinnasamy v. Government of Tamilnadu and others^[1]

¶11

wherein it is held at para No.5 as under:

¶12

“We direct the respondent-Government of Tamilnadu to give an appropriate posting to the appellant within one month from today and once he is given such posting, he must be assigned normal official work to be discharged by him as contemplated under the rules and procedure in respect of the post the appellant is assigned. We hope and trust that the appellant shall be given a proper assignment commensurate to his position in the service and the State Government in its action would exhibit no bias or mala fides. We make it clear that we have not examined the correctness of such allegations as we are sure, given an opportunity the State Government would exhibit ideal conduct as an employer and establish by its conduct that the allegations were baseless. We make no order for costs.”

¶13

and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶14

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce (Telangana) appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein contended that G.O.Rt.No.710 Industries & Commerce (I.B.) Department, dated 19.5.1981, relating to the distribution of work to the various departments in the Government was issued about 33 years back and after separation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, several projects have been taken up; that for the purpose of smooth functioning of the department, the office orders, dated 7.7.2014 and 11.7.2014, were issued dividing the powers of each officer and it is only a work distribution among the officers and they are not liable to be challenged; that the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order and that order needs no interference by this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶15

7. No doubt, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.710, dated 19.5.1981, regarding the distribution of work among the Director of Industries and two Additional Directors in the Directorate of Industries for the purpose of supervising and efficient and effective functioning of the Department to each senior officer handling certain subjects independently, and distributed the work among the Director of

¶16

Industries, Additional Director (I.A.S. Cadre) and Additional Director of Industries (Non-I.A.S.Cadre). A specific plea has been taken by the learned Government Pleader that as that G.O. was issued about 33 years back, as one Additional Director cannot monitor all the Government Programmes for effective implementation of the schemes/activities of the department and time bound processing of the files, the aforementioned office orders have been issued. This Government Order was issued in the year 1981 and it is not in dispute that after lapse of 33 years of issuance of this Government Order, several new schemes were introduced, as seen from the counter filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4. Furthermore, the petitioner is also Head of the Single Window Nodal Agency and also a member of State Level Clearance Committee. By virtue of he being in-charge of State Level Nodal Agency, the Government also approved the proposal of constituting a panel of three senior most Joint Directors to jointly preside over the State Level Verification Committee in place of Additional Director of Industries, as this would enable a more thorough verification of the claims before they are put up to the State Level Committee. So, basing on all these circumstances, reallocation of the work has been carried out after the bifurcation of the state with a view to increase efficiency and accountability of officers working in the Commissionerate of Industries. Therefore, with a view to reduce the level of processing of files and the delay in possession making, Additional Directors were asked to circulate the files directly to the Commissioner. Therefore, the office orders directing the Additional Director and the Programme Officers in the central office to process the files directly to the Commissioner and not through the Additional Directors cannot be said to be in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.710, dated 19.5.1981, because it is ordinarily for the Government to decide the distribution of work depending upon the exigencies. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that by virtue of this office order, there was any change of his service conditions.

¶17

8. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case because ordinarily, this Court would not have the role to play in such circumstances because it is only for expeditious taking of decisions, the files from the Joint Directors have to be routed directly to the Commissioner of Industries instead of passing through the Additional Director. Therefore, that distribution of the work is not a violation of any of the service conditions of the petitioner. The transfer of a civil servant will be invalid if it results in the extinction of his status as civil servant. Exigencies of administration or administrative exigency only means the need or demand for running good administration. The Tribunal, after consideration of all these facts, rightly dismissed the aforementioned Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶20

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 15.9.2014 AMD

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶22

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.23485 OF 2014

¶24

DATE: 15.9.2014