Dismissed

Endapalli Mahendar v. Disciplinary Authority and Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC3 Jun 2024WP/5692/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Deputy Manager challenged respondents' revival of departmental proceedings after a prior writ had set aside his punishment without liberty to continue them. The court found the fresh proceedings were contrary to its earlier judgment in W.P.No.24756 of 2019, holding they could not be restored and continued, yet dismissed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed without costs.

Endapalli Mahendar Vs Disciplinary Authority and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

r !

¶2

[^321e 1

¶3

IN THE HIG H COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD il (Special Original Jurisdiction) tI D MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE O THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HO OURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{T.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5692 OF²⁰²¹ I i I

¶8

Endapalli Mahendar, Sio^{Chandraiah, Aged about40 years,Oc^cDeputy Manager} (E-4) Office of SRP No.3 and 3A, Srirampur Area,^{The SingarenrUollrerres} Company Ltd., Manchetial^{Dist, TS}

¶9

II ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND I i

¶11

1- Disciolinarv Authoritv and Chairman^{and Managing Director,Kothagudem} Coffi"rle.,'The Sing'areni^{Collieries Company Ltd.' BhadradriKothagudem} District. TS I

¶12

¶13

Director, Persor{nel,^{Administrativeand Welfare (PAand.W), Kothagudem} - cottierier, The singareni collieries company Ltd., Bhadradri Kothagudem 3. Sri District, Alli RajeshTS tt r, GM QM, Enquiry Officer,^{O/o. GM (OM),BPA Region,} Srirampur, Mancherial District, TS

¶14

¶15

Sri K. Raghu K{rmar,^{DGM/Agent,O/o. RK-7 Group, Srirampur, Mancherial} District, TS.

¶16

3 { ...RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated *in .i the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to grant apprdpriate relief more li^{in the natureof Writ of Mandamus under} Article 226 of thet I Constitution of^{lndia declaring ProceedingsNo.} No.CRp/pER/ClO1Zt2i4 i dated^{30.01.2021 issuedby the 2nd respondentand} i Ref. No.GM/eM/BRgd/Enq/50^{dated 09.02.2021and Ref.GM/QM/BRgn/Enq/61} I daled 26.02.2021 boih^{issued by the 3rd respondent,as arbitrary,illegal,} i malafide, discriminatdry, void and^{without jurisdictionandu nconstitutionaI'} violating Articles t +, dO 'l and^{21 of th_e Constitutionof lndia, apart from violating} t?-

¶19

{ { t i Il

¶20

t, itt

¶21

principles of natural judtice and contrary to the judgement rendered by the Honble High Court dated 29.09.2020 I in WP No.24756 of 20'19 and set aside the same.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in siipport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend operation t of the I Proceedings No. Proceedings, i.e. I No.CRP/PER/C1O121274 dated 30.01.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and ,l Ref. No.Gtvl/QM/BRgriTEnq/50 dated 09.02.2021 and Ref. GM/QM/BRgn lEnq/61 l, daled26.O2.2O2'1 both{issued by the 3rd respondent.

¶24

,l !l d

¶25

Counsel for the Petiti6ner : SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH

¶26

il Counsel for the Respdndents: SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, . il (sc FoR S|NGARENT COLLTERTES CO.LTD) t

¶27

The Court made the f<illowing: ORDER

¶28

I I 1 I i il lil il il it :i i 1 I l

¶29

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI}

¶32

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO.5692 0F 202r}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

In this Writ Petition,^{the petitioner is seekinga Writ of Mandamus} declaring the^{pr-oceedingsNo.CRP/PENC|O\L|T7 4 dt.30.0 I .2021 issued} by the 2"d^{respondent and Ref.No.GM/QM/BRgn/Enq/50dated} og.o2.2)2l and^{Ref.GlwQM/BRgn/Enq/61 dated 26.02'2021both} issued by the 3"r^{respondent,as arbitrary, illegal, malafide'} discriminatory,^{void and without jurisdictionand unconstitutional.} violating Articles 14, l6^{and 2l of the constitution of India,apart from} violating the^{principtesof naturaljustice and also contrary to the} judgment rendered by this Court^{dated 29-09'2020 in W'P'No'24756of} 2019 andconsequently^{to set asidethe same and to pass such other order} or orders.

¶35

2.BrieffactsleadingtothefilingofthepresentWritPetitionare that the^{petitioner was initiatly appointed as a Junior MiningEngineer} Trainee in the^{year 2006' Later, he apptied for the post of Under} Manager^{(E2)and was selectedfor the said post and appointedas such}

¶36

W.P No.-s692 of 202 |

¶37

¶38

on 08. 10.2006. The I" respondent issued Article of charges vide proceedings No.cRP/PER/c/0l2ls/2544 dated 0g.10.20r4 rvhen the petitioner was working as Deputy Manager SRP_I INC, SRp area alleging that the petitioner neglected his duty and committed certain lapses while discharging his duties. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo denying the charges levelled against him and also tried to demonstrate as to how the charges levelled against the petitioner are not tenable and are misconceived. challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appear, but the same was rejected and punishment was confirmed. challenging the order of punishment as well as rejection ol the appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner approached this court by filing w.p.No.24756 of 2019. This courr vide order dated 29.09.2020, ser aside rhe punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the consequential orders passed by the appellate authority confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority but without any liberty to the respondents to either continue/restore the departmental proceedings. It is submitted that though the leamed Standing Counsel for the respondents had sought liberty from this court to take further action in accordance with raw as _suspenslon^{wasset aside by the Court,} the Court had orally rejected such

¶39

W.P.No.5692 ol202l

¶40

¶41

request. But the 2nd respondent, by^{impugnedproceedingsdated}

¶42

19.Ol .2021, continued the departmental^{proceedings pursuant to the} charge memo dated 08.10.2014 stating^that it^{is in compliancewith the} orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.24756^{of 2019 dated29-09.2020-} Challenging the same, the^{present writ petition has beenfiled.}

¶43

st 3. It is submitted that the^I respondent is the comPetent authority/disciplinary authority^{to take action against the petitionerand} not the 2nd respondent who^has tried^{to restoreor continue the} departmental proceedings in the^{guiseof complianceof the order of this} Cour1.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner has^{drawn the attention of this} Court to the order passed by this Court in^{W.P.No.24756 of 2019and} for ready reference, paragraph Nos.4^{to 7 of the said order are extracted} hereinunder:

¶45

The petitioner contends that he is uorking^{as Deputg} Manager ttith the respondents and while^heu)as discharging hisduties, duing October 2O14,^{tlrc respondents} haue issued charge memo dt.08-1O-2O^{1 4 alleging that the} petitioner utas negligent in superuising his duties^and accordinglg, disciptinary^proceedings were^initiatedand tLLereafter, u.tithout conducting ang^{detailedenquiry, the 1:t}

¶46

W.P.No.i692 oll02l

¶47

¶48

respondent has imposed a major penaltA of stoppage of^ttDo increments with cumulatiue effect uide orders dt.24-O3-2015. Aggrieued bg the some, the petitioner prektred appeal before the 2"d respondent-appellate authoritg challenging the orders of the 1{ respondent. The 2"d respondent was^pleased to dismiss the said appeal uide orders dt.25-05-2016. Challenging the some, the presentWit Petition^is filed.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kuluanth Singh Gill a. State of Punjabt and contended that the major^penaltg of stoppage of increments with anmulatiue effect cannot be imposed uithout conducing a detailed enquiry. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the puni.shment order imposed bg the respondents is controry to the lanu laid doun bg the Supreme Court and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, he contends that the Wit Petition be alloued bg setting aside the order of the appellate authoity uhich has confinned the order of the disciplinary authoitg order.

¶50

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that as per the Regulations of respondentcompang, the stoppage of tuo increments uith cumulatiue effect is a minor penaltg in accordance uith Regulations of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, and therefore the respondents haue imposed a minor penaltg. Hence, there is no merit in the Wit Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Apart from that, he further contends thot though punishment was imposed bg the disciplinary authoity on 24-O3-2015 and tlrc appellate autlnitg has dismissed

W.P.No.5692 ot 2021

I \

I I

the said appeal on 25-05-2016,^{the petitionerhas} approached the Court after three Aears and^{therefore the} petitioner has not approached the Court uithin^o reasonable time. Therefore, on this^{ground also the Wit} Petition is liable to dismissed for delay^{of limitation}

¶56

Hauing regard to the iual submissions^{madeby the} parties, this Court is of tte considered uieut^{that the} punishment imposed on the^{petitioner is contrary to tle lana} as laid doutn bg the Supreme^{Courtin KuluanthSlngh} Gtll (1 supra). TLrcrefore, the^{impugned orders dt.24-03-} 2015 of tle I't respondent and^{dt.25-O5-2016of the 2"d} respondent are liable to^{be set asideand acardinglytLrcg} are set oside.

¶57

Inspite of giving sufficient^{opportunities to the leamed counselfor} the respondents, no counter affidavit^{has been filed and on going} through the order of this Court in^{W.P.No.24756of 2019and the} relevant paragraphs referred to above,^{this Court findsthat there was no} liberty given to the authorities for restoring or^{continuing the} proceedings against the petitioner. [n the case^of "Kulwanth^{Singh Gill} Vs. State of Punjabt", it^{was held that the punishmentof stoppageof} increments cannot be imposed^{withoutconductinga detailed enquiry} and therefore, this Court has held^{that the punishment imposed on the}

¶58

| 191 Supp (1) ,CC 504

-:Try

.e-

W.P.No.569l of 2021

petitioner is contrary to law laid^{down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in.} "Kulwanth^{SinghGill Case" (supra)and accordinglyhad set asidethe} punishment orders as^{well as appellate orders. No libertywas grantedby} the Courl and therefore,^{the respondentscould not have restored or}

¶65

continued the departmental^{proceedings against the petitioner pursuant} to the charge memo^{dated 08.10.2014.}

¶66

In view of the same, this Court^is of^{the opinion thatthe} proceedings dated 30.01.2021 and also dated^{09.02.2021and} 26.02.2021 are of contrary to the^{judgmentrendered by this Courtdated} 29.09.2020 in W.P.No.24756 of^{2019 and therefore cannot be restored}

¶67

and continued

¶68

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.^{No order as to costs.}

¶69

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in^{this Writ Petition shall}

¶70

stand closed

¶71

SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII srcrrok-orrrcen To, 2. 1. One One CCCC to SRI to SRI P. Y{Elg!ryAtA!, sRt HARSHA REDDY, (SC^Advocate. topuclFOR SiNGARENt COLLTERTES CO.LTD )Advocdte [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies.f BSK I GJP I olg fi f rl III

I t. !I i) ! i

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/06/ 024

1
n,
C)
AJ ,$' ,'
tl)
s
w o
u- "r'
c Hglt{

¶76

ORDER

¶77

WP.No.5692