Partly allowed

The Secretary to Government v. B Ram Mohan

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025WA/1415/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order reinstating a school assistant with back wages after a departmental inquiry was held vitiated by procedural lapses. It held that since the employee was not exonerated on merits, reinstatement was unjustified, and the matter must be remanded for a fresh inquiry with no interim benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and modified to remand for fresh inquiry; reinstatement and back wages withdrawn.

The Secretary to Government Vs B Ram Mohan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t³⁴⁴⁶¹

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING^{CHTEFJUSTICE SUJOYPAUL} AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE RENUKAYARA}

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1415^{OF 2024}

¶9

writ Appeal under clause¹⁵ of^{the Letters Patent PreferedAgainst the order} OateO.bSlOOlZO23,^{in W.P.No. 24093Of 2008and on the file of the High Court.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

The secretary to Government,^{school Education Department, Government of} Telanoana. S-ecretariat^{Building,Hyderabad}

¶12

The Director of School Education,^{l(hairtabad, Hyderabad.}

¶13

ffre Regional Joint^{Director of School Education, Hyderabad'}

¶14

The District Educational^{Officer, Nalgonda District}

¶15

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS^NOS.1tO4

¶16

AND

¶17

B Ram Mohan, S/o B^{Veera Lingam, School Asst (lt/aths), CSI High School'} Aler, Nalgonda Dist

¶18

'oioiesiti gOrcational Secretary, CSI Karimnagar Dioces' Karimnagar'

¶19

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT^No'5

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} suspend the operation^{of the orderpassedin w.P.No.24093/2008,Dated.} 05.06.2023^{pending disposalof the WritAppeal}

i:' 1

IA NO i1 oF 202s

Betweern:

hler, E] Ram Nalg,:nda Mr:han. Di.i S/r B v""" Lingam' School Asst (Maths), ()sl High school, AND .....PET|floNER/RESPONDENT

¶27

'1 . The Secretaru ro Gr e n'i G o ve rn m e nt or

¶28

, ilF [+ur#;lcll"i?.'u^gi,f"#, *B: fi ffi:m iIIEE8?lLlfl .,1i;:l"T'"",.b",if :i.^fi::Sx6,"gr[i'o?,i[,0

¶29

...RESpONDENTS/AppELLI,NTS Nos. 1to4

¶30

Diocesarr Edur;ational Secretary, CSI Karimnagar Dioces, Karinnagar.

¶31

...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶32

4t Pertition uncer section 151 cPC praying that in the circum stances stated in the affidavit fired irr support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim orrl-'r dt,2or12t2o24 in writ Appeat No.14151202:4and dismiss the writ appeal as de,roid of merits.

¶33

Counsel^.tbr the Appeilant: SRl. S. RAHUL REDDY,

¶34

SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REP

¶35

ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶36

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Ms. C. VANI REDDY

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.p. SANGAM

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

¶40

¶41

THE HONOURABLE^{THE ACTINGCHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICE RENUKA YARA}

¶42

WRIT AP^{PEAL No.14LS of2O24}

¶43

JUDGM^{ENT(Orall:(Per Hon'blethe ActingChief Justice)}

¶44

Withtheconsentfinallyheard.SriS.RahulReddy'learned Special^{Government Pleader representingthe iearned Additional} Advocate^{General, for the appellants and Ms' C' Vani Reddy'} learned^{counsel for respondent No 1'}

¶45

This intra-Court^{appeal assails the order datedO5'06'2023} in W.P.No.24O93^{of 2O08, whereby the petition filed by respondent} No.1 herein,^{was allowed anda-lso the order dated O6'09'2024\n} I.A.No.1 of^{2024 (Review Application) in W'P'No'24093 of 2008'} whereby^{the review applicationfiled by the State' was dismissed'}

¶46

Sri S.^{RahulReddy, learnedSpecial GovernmentPleaderfor} appellants/^{State raised singular submission that a plain reading} of the impugned^{order dated 05'O6 '2023 of the learned Single} Judge makes^{itclear that the reasons for interference inthe} Departmental^{EnquLryand punishment are basedon violationof} the principles^{of naturaljustice- Learned Single Judgeopined} that no^{reasonable opportunity was provid'edto respondent No'1} herein.^{Neither copy of the vigilancereport dated O5'01'2006was}

¶47

¶48

surlplied t'r him nor he had the opportunitv io .rcsr..-examine the witnesses. Learned Single Judge further opined ihr,-t respondent No. i herein !./i1s not given free cha,ce to lead e'icler-ce in respect of the chargr:r; and to put relevart questions b1. ,,,72r. of cross_ exa,minaticn. Respondent No. t herein was n ot provided opprortunit'y tc, produce any witness and lead evirlence in his defi:nce.

¶49

It is further submitted that based on the rriolation of prirrcipiesr oi natural justice, punishment orcier dater.. 02.o2.2oog ald appellatr: order 26.Og.200g were set aside. .lt is fairly contenderl by the learned Special Government plezrrler that the Departmenr, is; not aggrieved by the order of the lelrmed Single Judge to the extent learned Single Judge found iault in the procedural part of the Departrrrental Enquiry. In r ther words, learned S percie:l Government pleader fairly admitteci i.hat learned SingJe Ju dge \vas justified in interfering in the D epartmental Enqrliry or-r vio lation of principles of natural justice, br_it the proper course wc,u [d ]rave been to permit the Departmenl_ to conduct further enquiry from the stage the elror crept in and pass a fresh orde.r in ac.corda.nce with law. Learned Single Judge ccmmitted an error in rejet.tir 11 the review application.

d (

Learned^{counsel for respondentNo'l submitsthat no fault} can be found^{in the order of the iearnedSingle judge in setting} aside the^{punishmentand appellate order forviolationof} principles^{of natural justice'By placing reliance on the judgment} of the^{SupremeCotrrt in the case of Marwari Balika v'Asha} Srivastava^{1, itis urged that in the said case' since order was} stigmatic^{one, the order was interferedwith ald matter was not} remitted^{back for conductingfurtherenquiry'}

¶55

Learned^{counsel for the parties confined their argumentsto} the extent^{ind-icated above and no other point was pressed'}

¶56

Indisputedly,^{the only questionbefore this Courtis whether} while hnding^{fault in DepartmentalEnquiry and setting asidethe} punishment^{and appellate order' itwas proper for the learned} Single^{Judge to direct for reinstatementof respondentNo'1 herein} with full^{back u,ages. Puttingit differently, when respondentNo' 1} herein^{was not exoneratedon merits and interferencewas solely} made on^{technica-tgrounds i'e''on violation of principles of} natural^{justice,whetherit was justihedin directing reinstatement}

¶57

{

¶58

I Civil AppealNo.9166 ol2013, dated 14022ol9

¶59

¶60

wi1-h back u'irges n ithout permitting the Departme irt to conduct further enquiry from the stage natural justice -rvas br:.ached.

¶61

B. The leg;J journey in this aspect needs tc be considered. The same woull show that when enquiry and punishmeri is interfered witir sorerl' o -r the ground of violation of prir-rciple s of natural Just.ice, prcpe^- course is to set aside the enquin_ from ths slags errcr crept in and permit the employer to conCuct further. enquiry from that slagt: The relevant judgments of the Sr-rpr-er-,re court are Anant R. .Kutkarni v. y.p.Education Societyz a::d State of Uttar Pradesh rr. Rajit Singhs.

¶62

9 In, Anant R. Kulkarni (supra), it u,as heid as Lrn{ er:

¶63

''13. It is i. sertled legal proposition that once the cc,trt sets aside an or(tirr of p,,"ij_r-"r,ior, ;". ;.ou*#,;iar re :nquiry \r'as n()r pr,rperly conducted, .trr. .o,i.i "r.i"ii ,", ,. e'erely precluclc rh. srnpl6y6r- from holding ,rr.'inqrr:li'i" ac( , rclance rvith la,r. lt rrust remit the .""" .o.n...rl.d"," ,, dis, piinary a.uthoritl, [o (]onduct the enquiry f..- tfr. p.irt Lhat it stood vitiated, anrl to conctu.ie. thL same i"-;;.;;;;;.," ui.h taw. Flowever. re:.orrinq I o such,a .;"; d.;;;:';;:,.t of delinqrler<v involved. Thr:,,th9 colrt niust .rxar:ine r1.rr,, qravilrthe nragnittrde >f misconduct .^aileged -t'hat^{.g"ir,"t *it} enployr:e. Ir is in view of this "^{dcri tquent} ""irli"),.r't^{l"als rrre not} ;iffi:5i:li' HiT'1.n"arge-sheet "'d^{;'i;;; ai".,,rinai,} urb..-.,,,io,,. J *- ""o" iu,*i! g"Til'fJ:#i:. r i;^;, #; sr!.e 72',t : ArR lee4 sc t^ol4l:!i;;" M;;'il;rachaulya r,. S.M. Sclroot ior Cirts tt2oo_2t^ioscC )0s1,,"u.;.'S;",. S1 g. Co. Lrd. v. r.:..i. i,rtndev lrioos)€ scc rA;;iunior ri ;r ctia v. y.S. sadhrr lr.2co8i t: scc'go: ol ;;o6$ ,;,ii:l

¶64

¶65

'1zo^t:.1 o scc sts

¶66

' (2022) tj scc 2s 1

-(.

In, Rajit Siugh^{(supra), the Supreme Court held as under:}

¶71

"l2.\n LICv. A.^Masilamoni ILIC^{v ' A' MasilamanL(2013) 6} s-cC sso :^{(2013) 2 scc (L&S) 6081 , whichwas also pressed} i.rto ""*i."'on^{behalf of the appeilantsbeforethe High Court'} it is observed^{in para16 as under: (SCC p' 536)}

¶72

'16. It is a^{settled legal proposition, that once the} court sets aside^{an order of punishment'on the} ground that the^{enquirywas not properly conducted'} Ihe court^{cannot reinstate the employeeltmust} remit the case^{concerned to the disciplinary authority} for it to conduct^{the enquiry from the point that it} sarne' stood vitiated,^{andconclude the} (vrd. eAtu. e. Kat'unokar IECIL^v '^B' - -Karunakor ' irso:t^{+ scc 727 : 1993 SCC (L&s) 11841 ' Hiran} 'Magee BLnttachoryga v' S M School for G[rls lHiron iigee nhatta.h"rgaa^{v' S M Sctlo.o^l-for.Gils.'(2oo2l} 10^-SCC 293^{:2OO3 SCC(L&S) 10331} '^{U'P StateSpg'} Co. Ltd. v. R.S.^Pandeg ILI'P'^{State Spg' Co' Ltd v' R'S'} Pandey,^{(2005) 8 sdizo+ : 2oo6 SCC (l*'s) 781} and' tliion^{of India vY'S' Sadhu lunion of Indiav'Y S'} i"it*, lzoozy^{12 scc 30 : (2009)1 scc (L&s)1261')"}

¶73

From^{the impugnedjirdgment and order passed by the} High Court,^{it appearstlhat whenthe aforesaid submission} decision was^{pressed into service' the High} ""i^." ^fore"aid c"".t r-r""^{not considered the iame on the groundthat the} otn., otlt""r"^{involved in respect of the sameincidentare} exonerated^{and/orno action is taken againstthem'Applying} ifr" f. hid^{down in A. MasilamaniILIC v' A' MasilamanL} tzoiii^{o scc seo : (2013)2 scc {L&s)6081to the factsof the} case on hand,^{we are of ihe opinionthat the Tribunalas well} ""?"-^{llrgn iourt ought to have remanded the matter to the} Jl"ipfi."iv^{authority -to conduct the enquiry from the stage it} .passed by the High Court "i."d "lri"La.^{Therefore,the order} i.r-.rot .fto*ing^{further proceedingi from the stage it stood} "iti"rla^{i.e. ifterthe issuanceof the charge-sheet' is} unsustainable.

¶74

In view of^{the above discussion and for the reasons stated} above, the ftndings^{recorded by the Tribunalas well as the} ffigft^' Cor-,.,^{qri"hit'gand. setting aside the order of} pr?i"nl".li-po"ed^{bl' the disciptinaryauth,orityby applying} ihe docrrine oi^{equatity is here-byquashed- 3nd sel aside'} . flowever,^{as the enquiry is foundto be vitiated} ^t'J^{i" fo""a its:}

be ir.r 'ricla tion of the principles of natural justir:e liir smuch as it is :t1le 3:d that the relevant documents menttol ed in the chargr:-sh,:et were nor supplied to the delinquer:t rfficer, we remar d tlLe matter to the disciplinary authcrirv to .onduct a fresh enrp,riry from the stage it stood vitiated Le after the issuarrcc of the charge-sheet anll to proceed lurthe,: with the enqrtirw irfter furnishing all the necessa.iy (..ocuments mentioncc in the charge-sheet and alter foiir:,.,r,ing due prin,:iple:; of natural justice. The aforesaid exercis,t shall be compl:terl within a period of sk months fror n toclay."

¶79

1 1. Th,.s is (rqually settled that in the cases rvhere the further en,quiry is cii-r:cted, the question of reinstatement ilr interregnum period does r ot arise. The question of reinst.rtemenr or final relief would depenc. on the outcome of further enquir.". The same principle wil i govern the question of back \4ragi,.s and other ber-refits. In other \vords, the^.cutcoiTre of further enquiry r.r.ill decide th,: ,luantum of punishment a_rld alsc r.:onsequential benefits lif anl ).

¶80

So fair, the judgment of Marwari Balika (supra), on which reliance is pr i166d by the learned counsel lbr res;;ondent No.l herein is conr:,:rned, a careful reading of it shorvs th at it is not a case of DeDartmenta-l Enquiry. Instead, it is a case .f termination of zr probat.iorLr:r b1, issuing a stilpnatic order. Thereribre, the said judgmenr is o no use lor respondent No. I herejn.

{

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside to the extent direction was issued for reinstatement with back wages. Instead, the Department may proceed against respondent No.1 from the stage of recording evidence of prosecution and the appellants shall complete the Departmental Enquiry in accordance with law within six months from the date of production of copy of this^judgrnent Failing which the right to conduct enquiry shall stand forfeited. The consequential benefits will depend on the outcome of the enqu1ry.

¶85

With the aforesaid, the^j.rr.pugned orders dated 05.06.2023 and 06.09.2024 in W.P.No.24093 of 2OO8 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.24093 of 2OO8 stand modified to the extent indicated above. The Writ Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall

¶86

stand closed

¶87

SD/.K.^{SRINIVASA RAO} JOINT //TRUE^COPY// ECTTON^OFFICER

¶88

To,

¶89