Allowed

S. Venkata Chary, Kmnr Dist. v. Karimnagar Dist. Milk Producers Mutually Aided Coop. Union

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024WP/10744/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing an order of removal from service. The court held that the order was illegal because it recorded a non-filing of explanation by the petitioner, despite a copy of his explanation being on file, thereby violating natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of removal from service was set aside.

S. Venkata Chary, Kmnr Dist. Vs Karimnagar Dist… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

13217 l

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10744 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

S. Venkata Chary, S/o. Raiaram, aged^{about 58 years, Occ: Senior Assistant} Rl/o. Durshed (Village) Karimnagar Mandal and^District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Karimnagar District Milk Producers^{Mutually Aided Co-operativeUnion Ltd.,} rep. by its Managing Director, Karimnagar.

¶12

...RESPqNDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavrt^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to call for the records from the respondent in^{ProceedingsNo.SCN} No./60/E/93, and issue an appropriate^{writ, order or direction, particularly one in} the nature of Writ of Certiorari and^{quashthe order passed by the respondent in} Proceedings No.SCN No./60/E/93,^{dated 27.O5 2009,holding the same ad'} illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary,^{perverse andwithout} iurisdiction^and grant all consequenlial benef its.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009 WPMP. NO:^{13800 OF 2q)g)}

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto} direct the respondent to^{release the retirement benefils by suspending the order}

¶16

¶17

of removal in^{Proceedings No.SCNNo /60/E/93, daled 27 'O5 2009'pending}

¶18

disposal of the^writ Petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI P.GOVINDA RAJULU}

¶20

Counsel for the Sole^{Respondent:SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETW}

¶21

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N' TUKARAMJI} WRIT PETITION^{No.10ru4of 2009}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri P.Govinda^{Rajulu, leamed counsel for the petitioner} and Sri Ajay^{Kumar Madisetty, learned counselfor respondent'}

¶26

This writ^{petition has been filed under Art'rcle 226of} Constitution^{of lndia for issuanceof Writ in the natwe of Certiorarito} callfortherecordsfromtheKarimnagarDistrictMilkProdubers Mutually^{Aided Co-opeative Union Limited/respondent and to quash} \ the order^{of removaldaled27 .O5.2009as unjust and illegal' </sup> 3. Briefly stated^{the factsof the case are that,the writ pet'ttioner} had entered^{service withthe respondent society in the year 1971 as} contingent^{worker, later as time scale rivorkerand JuniorAssistant} and then Senior^{Assistant. ln the year 2003, he was removed from} the servives,^{pursuentto a DepartmentalEnquiry' Aggrieved thereby} the writ^{petitioner raised an industrial dispute beforethe LabourCourt'} Godavarikhani,^{wherein he was reinstatedint'o servicewith continuity} ofservicebutwirhoutbackwages.Thewritpetitionerchallengedthe award for^{back wages and the respondentsociety againstthe} direction of^{reinstaternent.Thep{ea of the writ petitionerwas allo\i/ed} and the matter^{was remittedto the LabourCourt for fresh inquiry'} Challenging that^{order,the writ petitioner filed Writ Appeal' wherein}}

¶27

l17R,J tV.P. Nol0744 of2009

¶28

¶29

I ; I i III I

¶30

an interim direction of suspension of order of remand was passed and directed the respondent society to comply the contemplation of the Section 17(B) of l.D. Act, pending appeal. ln the meantime, the respondent society reinstated the writ petitioner's serviee from 24.03.2008 without back wages. However, the respondent on 05.03.2009 issued a fresh charge sheet, for which the writ petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 30.03.2009. However, the enquiry was ended with the impugned order inflicting the removal from service as punishment. Thus, the present writ petition.

¶31

I have perused the materials on record. 5. The annexures of the writ petition are making out tha\ on r 05.03.2009, the writ petitioner was served with the charges by referring to his reinstatement, however contending that he tried to escape from the duties and disobedience to the orders of the supervisors, refusal to take charge of l.D.S.K., non compliance of day to day stock a@unt and non-submission of day to day account.

¶32

Admittedly, show cause notice has been served on the writ petitioner. However, in the impugned order it has been specifically recorded that the petitioner has not submitted any reply by insisting the copies of the enquiry proceedings and categorically mentined that inspite of serving the enquiry report and other material documents,

¶33

the petitioner has not filed any reply. Nonetheless, interestingly the

¶34

¶35

refurence column of the order in 2d^{refurencehas b'een stpwnas} "expalantion, dated^{30.03.2009 of Sri S.Venkata Chary"'}

¶36

7 The writ^{petitionerhas pointedto this referenceand copy of} explanation and^{contended that the inquiry fficer/Managing Director} ought to have^{conskleredthe explanation before passingthe order'} As noted above,^{the wording in the order that no reply has been} submittedbythewritpetitionerisevidencingthattheexplanationwas not considered^{while passing the order.This glaring discrepancyis} evidencing that^{the order has been passedunilaterallywithout taking} into the explanation^{offered by the writ petitioner. ln other words the} writ^petitioner has^{been remained unheard and this aspectis} traversing the^{principlesof natural justice. For this reason,the} impugned order is^{liable to be and is accordingly set aqide'} Howsoever,ifthecausesurvivesunderlaw,therespondentshallbe at liberty to^{pass appropriate order uponconsideringthe} representation dated^{30.03.2009of the writ petitioner'}

¶37

Accordingly,^{writ petitionis allowed.No order as to costs'}

¶38

Miscellaneous a lication^{q g:ndingi anY-shall s} d That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness

¶39

The Hon'ble SRI ALOK ARADHE, The Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Fourteenth of November, Two Thousand and Twenty Four.

¶40

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SD/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

1 . The Managing Director, Karimnagar Dist- Milk Pmducers Mutually Cooperative Union Ltd., Karimnagar.

¶46

One CC to SRI P.GOVINDA RAJULU, Advocate {OPUCI

¶47

One CC to SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY, Advocate {OPUCI

4- Two CD Copies

3:5^PM(

==-,-l-@ti+>.r6t!

I , Ir I I I EtIt I! t t I 3 t rI I t I + I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1411112024

ORDER

WP.No.10744 of 2009

( o\r 1HE .sle ) C
J ((
01 i,li; ?l?S
c'
,) ,,
\i ,. ,7

¶57

,.;

¶58

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

Pr^(

fz'-:-(

S. Venkata Chary, Kmnr Dist. v. Karimnagar Dist. Milk Producers Mutually Aided Coop. Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Venkata Chary, Kmnr Dist. v. Karimnagar Dist. Milk Producers Mutually Aided Coop. Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P. Power Transmission of Corporation Hyderabad, Vs the Addl Industrial Tribunal Cum and Another

Navothu Pundareekam Vs Amand Bal Raju

A.Sriramulu, Khammam Dist. Vs Chief Engineer (Oandm) A.P. Genco, Khammam Dist. and Another

Radharapu Shanker, Khammam District Vs the Chairman Andmd., Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd and 3 Others

Mohammad Nizamoddin Vs Banuka Rajesham

Payyavula Sathaiah Vs Dornala Laxma reddy (Died)