This Writ Petition challenged an order of removal from service. The Court held that under the unamended Act, the Government was not mandated to refer all misconduct to the Tribunal, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs awarded. Pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No. 3533 OF 2002
ORDER:
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.11.2001 in Original Application No.5729 of 1998 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings No.A3/7378/88, dated 02.08.1998 issued by the first respondent, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are as follows: Certain irregularities were noticed while the petitioner was working as Special Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) at Vikarabad, and a charge memo was issued for non-remittance of sale proceeds of the commodities. As the applicant had not submitted any explanation, the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted his report. Basing on the enquiry report, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service and also as to why an amount of Rs.3,09,706.73 ps. should not be recovered from him towards shortage of commodities. Thereafter, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 02.08.1998 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application, which, vide impugned order, dismissed the Original Application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service
and that the first respondent has no other option except to refer the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (for short, ‘TDP’) under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act, 1960’) as unamended. He placed reliance on a decision in State of A.P. v. Dr. K.Ramachandran[1] , in support of his contention.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is raised for the first time in this Writ Petition and that there is no such plea taken in the Original Application and so, the same cannot be entertained; that the first respondent rightly passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service basing on the proved misconduct, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
5. When it is a question of jurisdiction, it can be raised at any point of time. Simply because the said plea was not taken at the earliest opportunity, it does not mean that the petitioner is debarred from raising that plea. It is not a case where principles of natural justice were violated in conducting enquiry or it is not a case of no evidence. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the first respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order before the Tribunal, and he ought to have referred the matter to the TDP in view of Section 4 of the Act, 1960. In Dr. K.Ramachandran’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held thus: (para 10).
“Section 4 of the Act which was in mandatory terms was amended by Andhra Pradesh Act 6 of 1993 and the word ‘shall’ occurring in Section 4 was replaced by the word ‘may’, which gave a discretion to the Government to refer or not to refer the matter
to the Tribunal. Section 4-A which was inserted in the principal Act by the same amending Act, namely, Andhra Pradesh Act 6 of 1993, gave power to the Government to withdraw at any stage, any case from the Tribunal before the conclusion. This, again indicates that the choice to refer or not to refer the case to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceeding or to withdraw any case already referred to the Tribunal, became available to the Government only after the amendment of the principal Act by Act 6 of 1993.”
6. There is no dispute that Section 4 of the Act, 1960, as it stood unamended, as on the date of misconduct in the case on hand, prescribes that the Government shall refer the matter to the Tribunal for enquiry. The above provision makes it clear that all allegations of misconduct need not be referred to the TDP. Only such of those instances of misconduct, as may be prescribed by the Government, alone have to be referred to the TDP. Counsel for the petitioner did not produce any material to show that the misconduct as alleged against the petitioner, is one of the instances of misconduct prescribed by the Government. Therefore the contention that the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner herein has to be referred to be TDP cannot be accepted and it is wholly untenable. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
(K.C. BHANU, J.)
----------------( ANIS, J.)
12.03.2014
DRK
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No. 3533 OF 2002 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
12.03.2014
[1] 1998 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1001
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Government errantly passed an order of removal of the petitioner from service without referring the matter to the Disciplinary Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act.
Whether a plea regarding jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Act can be raised for the first time in a Writ Petition despite not being taken in the Original Application.
Whether the Government was mandated to refer all misconduct instances to the Tribunal under the unamended Section 4.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of A.P. v. Dr. K.RamachandranReferred¶3
State of A.P. v. Dr. K.Ramachandran [1] 1998 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1001
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
First Respondent
K.C. Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
