Allowed

Pidugu Sudhakar v. The State of Telanagana

Telangana HC22 Sept 2023WP/4913/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner as Village Revenue Officer. The court held that terminating a fernployee without notice, charge memo, enquiry, or assigning reasons violated principles of natural justice and supported general legal precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings terminating the petitioner from service are set aside. No order as to costs.

Pidugu Sudhakar Vs The State of Telanagana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J^{SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT P ETITION NO:4913 OF²⁰¹⁷

¶7

Between

¶8

Pidugu Sudhakar, S/o Pidugu Gopaiah,^{Aged about 42.yearc, Occ} .Agriculture, R/o Mogilicherla Village, Kuravi^{Mandal, Mahabubabad (WarangalOId) District.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telanagana,,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2- The Tahsildar, Kuravi Mandal,^{WarangalDistrict.,-}

¶13

Pidugu Krishna , S/o Late^{Gopaiah,, Hindu,age.d about.53} ltea1s, Occ:" Painter, R/o Mogilicherla ,^{Kuravi Mandal,Mahboobabad District} (Erstwhile Warangal Dist)

¶14

Pidugu Janardhan , S/o^{Late Gopaiah,,Hindu ag?d about50 years,.Occ: Nil,} R/o i/ogilicherla , kuravi Mandai,^{Mahboobabad District (Erstwhile Warangal} Dist)

¶15

(RR3 and 4 are impleaded as^{per C.O dt.0210812023 in lA 0212017} WPMP 15725 t20171

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226^o1 lhe^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue writ o;.order or direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of a} "Writ Of Mandamus" declaring the^{proceedingsof the 2nd respondent in} Proceedings No. Ai'173',l120'13^{dated14-10-2016is illegal, arbitrary, violation of} principles of natural^justice and contrary^{to the procedure and set aside the same} consequently direct the^{2ndrespondentwho instatethe petitionerto the post of} village Revenue Assistant of^{Mogalicherla,Kuravi Mandal,Mahabubabad} (Warangal old) District

¶18

'l I t i, 1

¶19

l.A. NO:1 o F 2017(WPMP. NO: 5982 OF 2017't

¶20

Petition under section '15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in proceedings No Ar1731/20'1 3 dated 14-10-2016 pendrng disposar of the above writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner : SRl. J VENKATESWARA REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Gp FOR SERVICES-II

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : SRI I(ONDAD| AJAY KUMAR

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

q
:ai ,r

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO UIRIT PETITI oN No.4913 of 2O]-7

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶29

". . . . . .to issue Wit or order or d_irection more partiatlarlg one in the nature of a Writ Of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd. rLspond.ent in Proceedings No.A/ 173 j/20j3 dated j4.1O.2Oj6 is illegal, arbitrary, uiolation of pinciples of natural justice and contrary to the procedure and set aside the same consequentlg direct the 2nd. respond.ent u.tho instate the petitioner to the post oy Viltog. Reuenue Assistanl of Mogali Cherla Kuraui Mand_al Mahabubabad Warangal old Distict. . ..."

¶30

Heard Sri J.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assisralt

¶31

Government Pleader for Services-Il for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Kondadi Aj ay Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 and perused the record.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father late pidugu Gopaiah while working as Village Revenue Assistant (Seth Sindhu) died on 19.O4.2O13 Ieaving behind the petitioner, his mother and unofliciai respondents No.3 and 4 who are his brothers, as legal heirs and that the petitioner,s mother made an

¶33

D.^' r

¶34

)

¶35

application dated 25.05.2013 to respondent No.2 to provide employment to the petitioner on co mpassionate ground s. The respondents after considering 1.he application issued proceedings No.Al 173l /20 13 dated 25.O7 .2016 appointing the petitioner as Village Revenue Officer.

¶36

3.1. Learned counsel for tlee petitioner further submits that vvhile the petitioner was; discharging duties, at the instance of petitioner's mother the unofhcial respondents lodged a complaint before respondent No.2 and basing on the said complaint the respondent No.2 issued proceedings No.A/ 173l /2013 dated 14.lO.2O16 terminating the petitioner from the services, without issuing any notice or without conducting any enquiry, which is contrary to law and violation of principals of natural justice ald prayed to se I aside the impugned Proceedings No.Al 1731 12013 datecl 14.IO.2016 issued by the respondent No.2.

¶37

04 . Per contra, learned Assistant Government

¶38

Pleader for respondents submits that the respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings basiing on the complaint

¶39

¶40

¶41

lodged by petitioner's mother that the petitioner is not taking ca-re of his mother and that the respondent No.2 has rightly issued impugned proceedings and the same is in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4 also reiterated the very sarne submissions.

¶42

Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the respondent No.2 appointed the petitioner as Village Revenue Officer vide proceedings No.A/1731/2013 dated 25.OZ.2016 on compassionate grounds in the place of his father. When the petitioner discharging his services, respondent No.2 passed impugned Proceedings No.A/1731/20 l3 dated 14.10.2016 terminating the petitioner from service basing upon a complaint lodged by the mother of the petitioner, even without issuing notice, charge memo and without opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry imposed major punishment of termination. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 imposing major punishment of terminating the

¶43

r;,::l

¶44

¶45

petitioner from service, is clear viol.ation of principles of natural^j ustice.

¶46

It is very rnuch relevant to mention here that in l{ulwant Singh Gill us. State of punjabt, the Hon'ble Apex Court held ttrat imposing major punishment/penalty without <:onducting regular enquiry rs per se illegai and mere issuance of show cause notice preceding to orCer imposed such penalty, is not enough.

¶47

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N.Mukherjee us. ttfnion oJ' Indi& held that administrative action must be supported by reasons. In the case on hand, resrpondent No.1 passed impugned order imposing major punishment of dismissal from service without issuing any notice, affording any opportunity to the petitioner, without conducting regular enquiry, and a-1so without assigning any reasons much less valid reas;ons and the same is contrary to law.

¶48

I I990 Scale (2) 591 ']^{lgqo ntRl9tt,t}

¶49

¶50

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Proceedings No.All73ll2013 dated 14.10.2016 issued by

¶51

respondent No.2, is liable to be set aside

¶52

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the

¶53

impugned Proceedings No.A/ 1731 1 2013 dated 14.lO.2016,

¶54

is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶56

any, shall stand closed.

¶57

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above Witness the Hon'ble the Chief Justice ALOK ARADHE, on this Friday, the Twenty Second day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Three.

¶58

SD/. K. VENKAIAH

¶59

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR - //TRUE COPY/, *

¶60

SECTION OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62