Allowed

N. Bhushan v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Sept 2023WP/40764/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana held that the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal without recording reasons, violating principles of natural justice. The court set aside the order of permanent removal and directed the respondent to reconsider the appeal within two months after affording a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.07.2017 was set aside; respondent No.3 directed to reconsider the appeal afresh and pass appropriate order within two months after giving personal hearing.

N. Bhushan Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 40764 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

N. Bhushan, S/o: Ramachandran, Age 33 years, Rt/o Kistarayinipalli Village, Chintapally Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD-ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The Commissioner, Rural Development, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶14

3 District Collector, Programme Coordinator, MGNREGS-TS (DRDA), Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶15

4 The Project Director, DWMA Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

¶16

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chintapally lr4andal, Nalgonda District ..

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, orders of the 3'd respondent in Proc.No.Ell1 139/HR/ 2014, dt.21-07 -2p17 conlirming the orders of 4rh respondent and further passed orders for permanent removal from service in Proc.No.E2l11 1'13912014, dt.27-122014 directed to recover an amount of Rs.'12,2981 + Rs.2,500/- penalty from the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, un constitutional, inviolation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Director, Rural Development in Circular No.666/EGS(P)12O12, dt.O9-O1-20'l 3 and consequently set aside the orders of 4th respondent dt.27-12- 2O14 and 3'd respondent dl.2O-O7 -2017 by

¶19

¶20

directing the Respondents to^permit the^petitioner to continue into^{service as Filed} Assistant of Kistarayipalli Village.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017^(WPMP. NO:50619 oF²⁰¹⁷¹

¶22

¶23

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court may be pleasedto} suspend the orders of 3'd respondent,^{dt.2o-07-2017 and 4rh respondent in} Proc.No.E2l1/1 13512014, dl27-12-2014 by directing, the^{respondents to permit} the petitroner to continue into service as^{FieldAssistant at KistarayipalliGram} Pachanayat, Chinthapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District,^{pending disposalof the} above Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.^{VENKATESWARRAO}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP^{FOR ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT} PLEADER FOR SERVICES.II REPLRESENTING LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SERVICES.I

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SMT.^{R. PADMAREKHA, SC FOR} MGNREGS

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P. KISHORE^RAO

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.4O764 of 2Ol7

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reiief: ". ... ..to i-ssue utrit order or direction more particularLy one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus orders of the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.El/1139/HR/2014 dated 2O.07.2O17 confinning the orders of 4th respondent and further passed orders for permanent remoual from seruice in Proc.No.E2/ 1/ 1139/2014 dated 27.12.2014 directed ta recouer an amount of Rs.12,298/- + Rs.2,SOO/- penalty from the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutiona| inuiolation of pinciples of natural justice and contrary to the guidelines tssued bg the Director, Rural Deuelopment in Ctrcular No.666/EGS(P)/2012 dated 08.01.2013 and consequently, set aside the orders of 4th respondent dated 27.12.2014 and 3d respondent riated: 20.07.2017 bg directing the Respondents to perrnit the petitioner to continue into seruice as Filed Assistanf of Kistaragipalli Village and pass. . . .."

¶34

Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsei for the petitioner and learned Stimding Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il representing learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the record.

¶35

¶36

{

¶37

03 l,carned^{counsel for the petitioner submits tkrat} as Filed^Assistant, the Pe^{tItlone r} \'as appoin^ted ChintaPallY^Mandal, KistaraYiPaLli^Grama PanchaYat, Nalgonda^{District inthe Year 2006} ur-rder^MGNRtrGS' issued^showcause During thc^servlce, respondent^No.4 notice^{No D21} I^{ll3g l2Ot4 oncertainallegationsi'e''} changeoflocation,benamimustersandmisappropriation of funds^{ernd that thepetitioner submitteddetailed} expianatrorr^{dated 28 'O7 '2014and that respondent No 4} R C No'E2/^I lll39 l2014^dated passcd Ordersⁱⁿ 27 .12.2O1'l^{dropping the proceeCings againstthe petitioner} and treatir-rg^{the same as first mistake and leviedpenalty of} Rs.14,798l

¶38

04^{Aggrievedby the said Order' the petitioner} preferred an^{Appeal before respondent No'3 Appellate} Authority.^{It is further contendedby the learnedcottnsel} for the^{petitioner that inspiteof droppingthe proceedings} by resportdent^{No 4, the petitioner was not instatedinto} service^{as FieldAsststant' The Appellate Authority without} considering^{thecontentions of thepetitioner passed}

¶39

¶40

impugned Order dated 20.O7.2017 enhancing the punishment by removing the petitioner from servtces.

¶41

{

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority is not having any^jurisdiction or authority to enhance the punishment in the appeal filed by the petitioner and that the impugned Order passed by respondent No.3 is without^jurisdiction

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that in Order dated 27.12.2014 passed by the respondents it is specifically mentioned that the^petitioner u,as warned and he was levied with penalty of Rs.14,798/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted while hling appeal before Appellate authority that the nature of order dated 27.I2.2OL4 passed by the respondent No.4 as 'removal order' and that there is no illegally or irregularity in the impugned Order^passed by respondent No.3.

¶44

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties arld on perusal of material available on record, it clearly reveals that the^petitioner //

¶45

¶46

{

¶47

was appoin tcd as F-ield Assistant, I(istarayipalli Gt-ama Panchayat, Chintapally Maldal, Nalgonda District in the 1,car-^{2006 undcr MG NRtrGSandrespor-rdentNo.4 issued} shorvcause noticc No.E2- 1/ 1139 l2Ol4 \nith several charges r.c., chalge of location, benami mttsters and rnisappropriation of lunds to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 2a.O7.2014 and. respondent No.4 passed Orders in R.C.No.tr2/ 1/ II39/2014 dated 27.12.2014 wherein it is stated that the petitioner neglectr:d his duties and caused financial loss to the Government ar-rd that the said arnount of Rs.14,798/is liable to be recovered from the petitioner and further stated that the mistake cornmitted by the petitioner is treated as lirst mistake and droppeci the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said Order, the. petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.3-appellate authority and the said authority u,hile dismissing the appeal enhalced the punishment removing the petitioner from services in addition to recovery of amount of Rs.14,798/- as ordered by. respondent No.4, especially, in the appeal filed by the

)

I \

I I

petitioner without mentioning any source of power arrd also rvithout giving any reasons.

¶52

{

¶53

It is very much relevant to mention here that the respondent No.3 while exercising quasi-judicial appellate powers ought to have considered the appeal by appreciating the material evidence on record afresh and by giving reasons. The Honourable Supreme Court in the M/s l{ranti Assoclates Put.Ltd and Another Vs. Masood Ahrnedl relying upon the Judgment of S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union oJ Indiaz held that the quasi-judicial authority or adrninistrative authority while passing orders should record reasons in support of its conclusions. In the case on hand, respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, without giving any reasons and passed a cryptic order, which reads as under:

¶54

"Therefore in accordance with the instructions under reference 9, 10 and 1 1 , the permanent removal of the Field Assistant from contract sewice besides recovery of Rs.14,798/- from FA is confirmed."

¶55

'^{zo ro 9 scc +96}

¶56

'^{t99o a scc 59+}

¶57

r--
\ : iE€f:
\ . -n_

¶58

ln such circumstances,^{ti-re impugned orderdated} 20.O7.2O 17 is liablc^{to be sct:rside}

¶59

{

¶60

For thc^{afolesaid reasorls, the impr-rgnedOrder} vicie Proc.No.Ellll39 lLIRl2014^{dated 2O'07'2O17,is set} asicle, ar-id thc^{respondentNo.3 is dirccted to considerthe} appcal flled by thc^{petitioner afresh, and pass appropriate} Order', in itcccrdett'tcc^{u'ith la''v,} "'ithin^{a period of tr'l'o (2)} montlrs from the^{date of rcccipt of copy of this Order,after} giving opportunitv to^{the petitioner includingpersonal} hearing.

¶61