The court dismissed the writ appeal challenging an order by the Single Judge that set aside a termination order for lacking competent approval. The bench held that no document proved delegation of powers to the officer who passed the order, upholding the lower court decision which deemed employees in service.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE $Rt JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJT
WRIT APPEAL NO: 939 OF 2018
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the order dated 11-10-2017 passed in writ petition No.7223 of 2000. on the file of the High Court.
Between:
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDETS 1 & 2
AND
....RESPONDENTS(WRIT PETITIONERS
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO. 3
lA NO: 2 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the order dated.11 .1O.2017passed in WP.No.7223 of 2000,pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.
lA NO:'t OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to receive the note file pertaining to granting of approval by the Chairman and Managing Director dated: 23108/1 994 for taking action against the1 st respondent/ Writ Petitioner as material papers in the above Writ Appeal No.939 of 2018.
counsel for the Appellants:sRl. J SREENIVASA RAo, sc FOR SINGARENI c
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SMT. K UDAYA SRI
Counsel for the Respondent No. 4; GP FOR EDUCATION
The Court delivered the following:
(
THE HON'BLE rHE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISHCHANDRASHARMA AND
THI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEN. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.939 of 2018
JUDGMENT: lPe tikItar'blethe t hr./../usri.e.:'.rrr-sii( h.rlc'o S/r'rarr.,
The pres rnt writ appeal is arising outof orderdated 11.10.2017 pe ssed inW.P.No.7223 of 2OOO bv the learned Single Judge.
The un( isputed facts of the casereveal thatthe respondents l efore this Court are thelegal heirs of the deceased en ployee, who was chargesheetedon 15/16.09.198'r by the Chief GeneralManager(Training and Education), S ngareni Collieries CompanyLimited, a-lleging certain irregul rities committedby himfor the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 987-88. The deceasedemployeeduring his life time has subr ritted explanationon 23.09.1989and thereafter an Enquiry O ficer was appointed inthe matter' Based upon the enquiry r eport, his services were terminatedby order dated 13.03. I 995. The deceased emplo-r'eepreferred a rvrit petition befc:e this Court i.e., W.P.No.5368 of1995 challenging tl e order of termination as itu'as passed r.vithout obtaining pr cr approval of the competentaLlthorit,' as required und rr Section 79 of the A.P. EducationAct, 1982 (hereinafter r :flerred to as "Act of l9\2"l. The writpetition was allowed as there was no approval by thecompetent authority b ' an order dated 07.04.1995 artdthe
l
appellant/Singareni Collieries Company authorities \.ere directed to make payment to the deceased employee till a decision is taken by the Regional Joint Director as required under SectionTg of the Act of 19g2.
The facts further reveal that the deceased employee was continued in service. However, he was not paid salary. Therefore, he again preferred a second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.20694 of l99Z seeking payment of salary till approval was accorded by the competent authority as required under the Act of L982. It is pertinent to note that on 24.12.1997, the Regional Joint Director, rvho is the competent authority under the Act of 1982. has granted approval and again order was passed on 30.09. 1998 terminating the services of the deceased employee. Against the said order, an appeal under Section 88 of the Act of 19g2 was preferred before the Joint Director of School Education, Warangal, by the deceased employee and the same was dismissed on 16.01.2000. Another writ petition was a_1so preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 30.09.199g and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 16.01.2000 before this Court and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The short point, which has been considered by the learned Single Judge, is that the order of termination dated 30.09.1998 was passed by an authoritv not competent to do so. It was categorically stated before the learned Single Judge that the appointing authority of the
/ /
L
deceased em1 loyee was the Chief General Manager (Training and Educatio r) and the order of termination u,as passed by the Additione I Chief Mining Engineer. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments canvassed by the learned counr el for the parties, has allo,"r,ed the r.r.rit petition. Paras 15 to 19 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:
" I 5. It ts stated that the order of termination and proposals to pass order of termination met the approval of the coml etent authority i.e. Charrmal ald Malaging Director; hat he has approved it at the relevant moment of time, tha entire Education and Training Depa-rtment was under cor trol of Additional Chief Mining Engineer arrd the latter car pass the order of termination; and so, the said officer par sed the order of termination.
1
the said ordcr is sct aside: the lst petitioltcr is deemed to be in sen,ice from that date till the date he would have superaxnuatecl lrom tl.re sen ices; and his legal heirs shall bc paid all the benefits including salarv incremenrs ctc. which he would have drawn till he attained the age of superannuation. Tl.ris exercise shall be completed wtthin three months from the clate of receipt ol a copy of this order. "
The order passed by the learned Single Judge reveals that a statement was made before the learned Single Judge stating that the powers of the Chairman and Managing Director to terminate the services were delegated to the Additional Chief Mining Engineer. However, no material was brought on record to show that the power was delegated to the Additional Chief Mining Engineer.
I.A.No.7 of 2021 has been filed and the notings in the file relating to deceased employee have been brought on record. The date on the notings starts from 22.06,1994 and the last noting, r.r.hich has been signed is 02.09.1994. Meaning therebv, the notings in the file relates to earlier termination order dated 13.03. 199S. Before this Court also no document has been filed even in the writ appeal establishing that the subsequent order of termination dated 30.09.1998 was passed by the competent authority i.e., Chief General Manager (Training and Education). Nothing prevented the appellant/employer to file the notings of the year 1998 in the manner and method the notings of the year 1994 have been filed. The notings of the year 1994 are not relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the presenr u.rir
appeal. Th e termination order issued based upon 1994 notings has alreadv been set aside in tlre earlier round ol litigation an I thereafter libertv ,,vas granted to pass a fresh order alter tbtaining approval ol the competent authority under the A( t ol 1982
In the considered opinion of this Court, as no single document I as been filed to show that the competent authority i e., Chief General Manager (Training and Education) 1 as delegated his powers to the Additional Chief Mining Engl :reer, this Court does not find any reason to interfere wiU r the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is an un lisputed fact not controverted by the present appellalt thr .t the appointing authority and the authority to pass an orc er of termination in the present case of the deceased em :loyee vr'as the Chiel General Manager (Training and Educatir n) and nor the Additional Chief Mining Engineer.
In the I ght of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to ir terfere r,r,ith the order passed b1, the learned Single Judge Accordingiy, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Miscell. meous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall b: no order as to costs.
To,
Sd/. CH. VENKATESHWARULU DEPU]TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 4__._ sEcTtoN oFFICER
PI,4
HIGH COURT
DAIED:O311212021
JUDGMENT
WA.No.939 of 2018
2..'6fri.<br>,ti ci" ,.'
//<
Dismissing the WA Without costs.
,4rrt
t19 tl
lJ l?-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court below was correct in setting aside the termination order passed without competent authority approval or delegation.
Whether the introduction of 1994 file notings establishes delegation required to validate the 1998 termination order.
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.
Chief General Manager
G. Vijayalakshmi Devi
D. Pavan Kumar
Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal
Satish Chandra Sharma
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
