Allowed

Ch. Narsimha Reddy v. The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

Telangana HC17 Nov 2023WP(TR)/3837/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 09.06.2015, which issued similar charges already adjudicated by the Administrative Tribunal in a stay order. The court directed the respondent authorities to pass necessary orders in terms of the Tribunal's earlier order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the proceedings Re.No.978/84/2013-14 dated 09.06.2015; directed respondents to pass necessary order reinstating the petitioner in terms of OA No.2307 of 2014 within eight weeks.

Ch. Narsimha Reddy Vs The District Collector… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION^(TR) NO: 3837 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

CH. NARSIMHA REDDY, S/O (Late) Pulla Reddy, Aged 49^years, Occ Secondary Grade Teacher PS Hybothpally, Parkal lt/andal, Warangal District.

¶9

\ ...PETITIoNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District 506001

¶12

The District Educational Officer, Warangal, Warangal District 506001 3. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department secretariat, Hyderabad 500022

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Section 226 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to call for the records relating to and connected with the impugned order issued in Rc. No. 97818412013-3, dated 9.6.2015 of the 2nd respondent, and set-aside or quash the same by holding the entire procedure adopted by the 1st and 2nd respondent in issuing the^present impugned order as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, bad in law contrary to CCA Rules, contrary to various^judicial pronouncements and issuing the present show cause notice by already taking a decision to impose a major^punishment of dismissal from service as an empty formality and consequently to hold that the applicant herein is entitled to continue as School Assistant with all consequential benefits

¶15

l.A. NO: I OF 2017(WVMP(TR). NO: 718 OF 20171

¶16

Between :

¶17

1 . The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.,

¶18

The District Educational Officer, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶19

The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

..APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶21

AND

¶22

Ch. Narsimha rqd^dy,. S/O.(Late) Pulla Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ Secondary Grade Teacher PS Hybothpaily,^parkat Mandal, Waranghl District.

¶23

...RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

¶24

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleasecl to vacate the orders granted in OA.No.3073/2015 dated: 25-06-2015

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES I

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

\ \

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JI,JSTICE I,N(MI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY

¶31

WRITPET1IION IIR,1No.38370F2017

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The present writ petition is hled seeking following reliet-

¶34

".. . .to call for tlle records relatrng to and connected with the impugned order issued in Rc.No.978/B4 /2013-3, dated 09.06.2015 of the 2"a respondent, and set-aside or quash the same by holding the entire procedure adopted by the 1", and 2na respondent in issuing the present impugned order as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, bad in law contrary to CCA Rules, contrary to various judicia-t pronouncements arrd issuing the present show cause notice by already taking a decision to impose a major punishment of dismissal from service as an empty forma-lity and consequently to hold that the applicant herein is entitled to continue as School Assistant with a_ll consequential benefits..."

¶35

Heard Sri Santhapur Sathyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-l appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶36

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this Writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passcd by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.382O of 2017, dated 28.02.2023 and the same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

¶37

1 \ti / ll I'(LRt |'o -t6-t7 ol.24

¶38

¶39

Follo'*,ing the earlier decision in W.P.No.3820 ot 2077, dated 28.O2.2023, this writ petition is also disposei of, setting aside the proceedings vide, Rc.No.978/84 12013-3, dated 09.05.2015. The respondent authorities are directed to pass necessary order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if auty, shall

¶41

stald closed

¶42

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTiI,AR

//TRUE^COPY//

seciloil%'irrcEn

To,

2.1. IISBi:lii:l3Sl^{j33le.l;SUft l:'"?1il'p?:ru:'jl&'31'ji'n"."."} J. The Principal^{Secretary't"il'oi eai"'tion Departmentsecretariat'} r ,Hish^{court ror the state or rel,nsana'at}

¶47

1. L,?;EtTiStAB^FoR 5 H1"S8?S^t?Y'Jo*.*o 'ERVT.ES^{t u R sATYANARAYANARAo' Advocate to P u cl} 6 Two CD^CoPies B M^{(1i\cr..i r.,i1rr ..Lal o[- ,.,'P} N C. 3 [/f,^c,ts :c+) GJP

{ iJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711112023

ORDER

WP(TR).No.3837 ot 2017

¶55

-i p,E S i-A r(
q ?.
v
(j 0 I 0E[ 2tr2]
t Qt'Sn.': 1 ' 1i' )./,'

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

q 48
w
,at \r- 23

¶58

HONOURABLE SRr JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶59

WRIT PETITION(T R) No. 3820 OF 2017

¶60

ORDER

¶61

This writ petition(TR) has been filed seeking to^"call for the records relating lo and connected with the impugned order issued in Rc No.978/8412013-14, dated 09.06.2015 of the 2"d respondent and set aside or^quash the same by holding the entire^procedure adopted by the 'l't and 2nd respondents in issuing the present impugned order as highly illegal, arbitrary unjust improper bad in law contrary to CCA Rules contrary and issuing the present show cause notice by already taking a decision to impose major^punishment of dismissal from service as an empty formality and consequently to hold that the applicant herein^is entitled to the continue as School Assistant with all consequential benefits"

¶62

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits that^{petitioner was} appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher through^DSC-1996 selection,^and vide Proc.Rc.No.A21514196, dated^{10.12.1996. Subsequentlybasing} on^his seniority, eligibility the^petitioner was^{promoted as School Assistant} (Physical Science) w.e.f 1.11 .2002, ln the cadre of School Assistant also the petitioner's services were regularized and^{probationhas also been} declared sat isfactorily.

¶63

¶64

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits^{that an adverse l\ews} report was published in Andhra Jyothi^{DailyNewsPaper, WarangalEcition} on 22.01.2013, alleging that certain^{individuals were appointed in} DSC-1996 notification by^producing fake^{hearing handicappedcertific?tes.} Basing on said News report, respondent^{No.1 ordered enquiry,however,} basing on the orders of the respondent^{No.1,the respondentNo.2} appointed Project Director,^DRDA Warangal, to^{conductpreliminary} enquiry in the matter by furnishing 23^{namesof Teachersworking in the} Warangal District, including the name of the^{petitioner, thus, the} petitioner was issued show cause notice, vide Rc. No.A5/3996/2013, dated 16.5.2013 by the respondent No.'1 , stating that^{"the appltcant} herein was appointed under hearing handicapped^{quota during the year} DSC-7996 se/ecllons and directed to^produce said^{originalcertifrcate} within (7) days f ailing which action will be taken^{as per rules."}

¶65

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on^receipt of the show cause notice, daled 16.05.2013, the^{petitionersubmitted} explanation on 31.05.2013 stating that^{he was} appointed^{duringDSC-1996} selections as SGT against OC^{(General) quota} and^{further stated that} petitioner has not produced any hearing handicapped certificate and the petitioner is Physically Handicapped (Ortho.) and the same is enclosed with necessary orthopedic certificate. However, without considering petitioner's explanalion and even without verifying original records, the

¶66

¶67

service of the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Proc. dated 20.3.2014 by the respondent No.2, which reads as follows:

¶68

"Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1991, the District Educational Officer, Warangal hereby placed the said Sri N.Narasimha Reddy, SA (Phy Sci), ZPss Venkiryal Mandal Jangaon, Warangal Diustrict under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceed ings/ terminat ion of all proceedings relating to the charges.

¶69

It is further ordered that during the period of this order remains in force, the headquarters of Sri.N. N.arasimha Reddy, SA (Phy Sci), ZPSS, Venkiryal i,landal, Jangaon, Warangal District, shall be at Venkiryal, Mandal Jangaon, Warangal Districrt and the sald Sri N.Narasimha Reddy, shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the District Educational Off icer, Warangal. "

¶70

Aggrieved by the said suspension proceeding order, dated 20.03.2014, petitioner has filed OA No.2307 of 2014 before the then Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal' hereafter) and the Tribunal order dated on 19.02.2015, which reads as under at Para Nos.14 to 16:

¶71

"14. As per the material available, the applicant was selected DSC 7996 under OC General quota for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and was given appointment through the proceedings dated 10.12.1996 and thereafter he was he promoted as Schoo/ Assislanf on 01 .11.2002 and is discharging his duties as such. Basing on some adverse news item

¶72

¶73

pubtished in Andhra Jyothi Newspaper,^{WarangalEditiott} dated 22.01 .2013, an enquiry^{was conductedon the ordersof} the District Coltector.^{The EnquiryOff icer submittedhis} report, where under it^{was foundthatsomeof the candidates} who were selected during^{DSC-1996have producedfake,} fabricated and fatse certificates^{for obtainingthe post under} various physicalty handicapped^{quotai e., Orthoand Hearinq} impaired, and, as such, they^{were directed to re-examinatio't} by the Superintendent,^{tvlcM hospital.After re-examinationof} the appticant, the Superintendent,^{MGM hospital found that} the applicant is having^{only 10% of disabilityand issued} certificate. The respondents^{assumingthat the applicantwas} appointed under^{physicatly handicapped (hearing impairect)} quota, issued a Show Cause Nofice to the^{applicant on} 16.05.2013 and directed^{him to produce the original medical} certificate. The applicant^{has submittedhis explanationon} 31 .05.2013 denying the allegation^{that he was appointed} under physically-handicapped^{quotaby mentioning that he} was appointed under^OC General^{quota.Not convincingwith} the explanation submitted^{by the applicantand basingon the} certificate issued by the^{Superintendent, MGil Hospital,} Warangal , the respondents^{haveissuedtheimpugnedorder.}

¶74

The respondents have mentioned^{in the counter affidavit} that the appticant was appointed^{under physicalty} Handicapped quota. lt clearly shows that^{totallywithout} application of mind and without^{verifyingthe records whether} the applicant was appointed^{underphysically.handicapped} quota or not, the respondents have issued the^ShowCau:;e Notice and subsequently^placed him^{undersuspensiott.} Annexure to the G.O.Ms.No.198, dated^{18.12.2007clearly}

¶75

¶76

shows that the applicant was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in OC General quota with 66.75 marks. The action of the respondents without verifying their own records placing the applicant under suspension only to counter the news item is arbitrary.

¶77

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of fhe case, the impugned proceedings Re. No.978/84/2013-1 , dated 20.03.2014 issued by the 1't respondent ptacing the applicant under suspension are liable lo be set aside and are hereby set aside and further the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service. This order does not preclude the authorities from conducting enquiry against the applicant as per rules. Accordingly, the O.A., ls disposed of. VMA stands c/osed. No cosfs.^"

¶78

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 19.02.2015, the respondent No.2 issued fresh impugned show cause notice, vide Rc.No.978/84l2013-14, dated 09.06.2015, which reads as:

¶79

"ln view of the above, Sri.N.Narshima Reddy, SA (Phy Sci) (U/S) is directed to show cause and submit his explanation as to why the Major Punishment should not be imposed against him as per sub Rule X of Rule I of CCA Rules 1991 , within 15 days on receipt of these proceedings positively failing which it will be construed that he has no explanation to offer and further action will be initiated as per the records/ material available in this office"

¶80

¶81

Learned counsel for the^{petitionersubmits that the Tribunal'by} order dated 19.02.2015,^{passedthe detailedorder and set asidethe} impugned^{proceedingsRe.No.978/84l2013-1, dated 20 03 2014 an'lthe} respondent authorities^{have not challenged thesamebefore the appellate} Court, however,^{issuedanotherimpugnedshow cause notice, vide} Rc.No.978/84l2013-14,^{dated09.06.2015with same charges as allegedin} vide Re.No.978/84t2013-1,^{dated 20.03.2014 which is already set aside} by the Tribunal and^{pray this Court to allow the writpetition(TR)by} setting aside the show^{cause notice, vide Rc.No.978/8412013-14,daled} 09.06.2015.

¶82

Learned Government^{Pleader for Services-l appearingfor} respondents submits that^{respondentNo.2 placed instructions,vide} Proc Rc No.978/84/2013-14, dated^{09.06 2015, wherein passe'C the} following order:

¶83

"Now, therefore in exercise of power conferred by Class^{(c) Sub-} Rule (4) of rule⁽⁸⁾ of the^{A.P.Civil Service (Classifica t ionscontrol} and appeal) rules¹⁹⁹¹ the^{DistrictEducationalOfficer,Warargalis} hereby revoke the said order of^{suspensionand reinstated} Sri.Nagilla Narshima Reddy,^{SA (Phy Sci) at ZPPSS,Venkiryala,} Jangon Mandal, Warangal^{District in the sameplace subj'?ct lo} initiation of^pending disciplinary^{actionagainsthim."}

¶84

Learned Government Pleader for Services-l further submits that the Tribunal order dated 19.02.2015 granted liberty to respondent authorities to conduct enquiry against the petitioner as per rules, and in view of the same, the respondent authorities issued show cause notice, vide Rc.No.978/841201 3- 14, dated 09.06.201 5.

¶85

Heard both sides.

¶86

ln view of the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, and after perusing the material on record, it is observed that the impugned order, dated 09.06.2015, vide Rc.No.978/8412013-14 issued by the respondent authorities are on the same ground as alleged in Re.No.978/84/2013-1 , daled 20.03.2014 which was already set-aside by the Tribunal, vide order dated 19.02.2015 in OA No.2307 of 2014, and in view of the fact that the charges alleged in Rc.No.978/84/2013-14, dated 09.06.2015 are similar to Re.No.978/84/2013-1 , dated 20.03.2014, acco r d i ng I y the i mpugned proceed i ng, vide Rc. No. 978/ 84 I 201 3-1 4, dated 09.06.2015 issued by the respondent authorities is set-aside.

¶87

ln furtherance to the same and in the backdrop of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.2307 of 2014, dated 19.02.2015 and the Proceedings vide, Rc.No.978 l84l2013-14, dated 09.06.2015 are being set aside, the respondent authorities are directed to pass necessary order in terms of OA No.2307 of 2014, daled 19.02.20'15, within a period of

¶88

¶89

eight (8) weeks from^{the date of receipt of copy of this order and} communicate the^{sameto the petitioner}

¶90

'13. Accordingly this Writ Petition(TR) is disposed of^{lvliscellaneous} applications, if any^{pending, shall standclosed. No orderas to costs'}

¶91

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAIIJ

¶92

28.02.2023 SHA

Ch. Narsimha Reddy v. The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Narsimha Reddy v. The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Charan Singh Vs The Southern Power Distribution

Venkatesh, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Ch.Vijaya Vs The Deputy Director General

S. Harischander, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Revenue (Regn-I) Dept, Hyd and 4 Ot

Sama Naresh, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Y. Maheshwar, S/o.Late Y. Pentaiah, Vs National Insurance Co. Limited, rep. by its Chairman-cum-