Allowed

V.Govardhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Aug 2025WP/23943/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Gram Panchayat electrician was terminated on grounds of dereliction of duty following an enquiry conducted behind his back, with no notice or opportunity of hearing. The Court held the termination violated natural justice, noting contradictory reasons in the impugned order and counter affidavit, and allowed the writ petition directing reconsideration of reinstatement with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21-01-2020 set aside; respondents directed to consider petitioner's reinstatement and consequential monetary benefits from 17-09-2019 within four weeks. No costs.

V.Govardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 23943 OF 2020

¶8

Between

¶9

V.Govardhan Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, aged about 35 years, Electrician, Grampanchayath Gandhasiri, Mudigonda Mandal. Khammam District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Panchayath Secretary, Grampanchayath Gandhasiri, Mudigonda MandalKhammam District

¶14

The District Panchayath Officer, Khammam District.

¶15

The District Collector, (Panchayath) Khammam-

¶16

Sri D.Raghava Sri D.Raghava D.Raghava Reddy, Upa Surpanch, Grampanchayath Gandhasiri,

¶17

Sri D.Raghava Sri D.Raghava D.Raghava ' Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District

¶18

Sri Jaladi Pichaiah, Electrician Grampanchayath, Gandhasiri, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District.

¶19

The Mandal Panchayath Officer, Mudigonda, Khammam District

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing impugned Proc. Rc.No.PZ249Z2019dl. 21-01-2020, in dis-engaging the services of the petitioner to accommodate the 6th respondent who is the son of the house mate of the 5th respondent after putting a decade service by the petitioner without his knowledge any notice, conducting any enquiry on their own and not sought any explanation to defend the petitioner himself to any charges, which were not communicated to the petitioner or ex-party enquiry report till date amounts, violation of enquiry procedure

¶22

and principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ; Hari Ram Maurya Verses Union of lndia and others in Civil Appeal No. 5523 of 2 )05 decided on 5th September, 2005 and the same was reported in (2006) 9 Supre r e Court Cases 167, and in the case of Jagdish Mifter Vs. Union of lndia, in Civil Apl eal No.718 of^'1962 dt-20-09-1963, reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 449 (1 , as highly illegal, arbitrary. unjust, unfair, and prays to direct the respondents lr rein to declare the appointment of the 6th respondent as totally illegal, against thr:^-ules, with a further direction to restore the appointment of the petitioner by granlir g all consequential monetary benefits w.e.f., 17-09-2019, to till date by applying ll e orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 5998 of 2009, dated 23-3 : 009.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶24

Petition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circurrs ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may br: cleased to suspend the orders of the 3rd respondent vide letter Rc.No PZ2492l1l( 19, dt. 21-O1-2O2O, dis-engaging the services of the petitioner, and oral enga lement of the 6th respondent with a further direction to the respondents to conl I ue the petitioner as Electrician in the Grampanchayath Gandhasiri, Mudigonda vlandal, Khammam District, Iorthwith, pending order or orders as this Hon'ble CoL 1 may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3,5,6 & 7: GP FOR SER/I IES-l Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PUSKURU KISHOR[: tAO,

¶26

SC FOR ZPP MPP

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.23943 OF 2O2O

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-f, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3, 5,6 and 7 and Sri Puskuru Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP & Gram Panchayat, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶34

2. The oetitioner aooroached the Court seekino oraver as under:

¶35

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3'd respondent in issuing impugned Proc. Rc.No. P212492/2019, dated 21-01-2020, in dis-en9a9ing the services of the petitioner to accommodate the 6th respondent who is the son of the house mate of the 5th respondent after putting a decade service by the petitioner without his knowledge any notice, conducting any enquiry on their own and not sought any explanation to defend the petitioner himself to any charges, which were not communicated to the petitioner or ex-party enquiry report till date amounts, violation of enquiry procedure and principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram Maurya Verses Union of^{India and} others in Civil Appeal No. 5523 of 2005 decided on^{5'h September,} 2005

¶36

¶37

SN, J VrP \o 21943 of2l)l{l

¶38

and the same was reported in (2006) 9 Supre re Court Cases 167, and in the case of Jagdish Mitter V i Union of India, in Civil Appeal No.718 of 1962 dated 2).1)9-1963, reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 449 ( 1 ) as hrghly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair. and prays to irrect the respondents herein to declare the appointmr: rt of the 6th respondent as totally illegal, against the rul,5;, with a further direction to restore the appointment of th: petitioner by granting all consequential monetary bene f ts w.e.f., 17-O9- 2019, to till date by applying the orders )assed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 5998 of 2⁽ 09, dated 23-3-2009, and pass.... "

¶39

The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Electrician in the ye; t 2017. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 5th resp( ndent without giving any notice or memo removed the petition,t' from service on the ground of absent from duty and app( inted the 6th respondent in place of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 2_.2 tO.2019 and 19.11.2019 to 3'd and 4th respondent requesting ,, ) reinstate the petitioner into service as electrician on ( ( ntract basis. Subseqeuntly 3'd respondent directed the 7th espondent to conduct enquiry into the issue of termlnation of l etitioner From service. The 7tr' respondent - Mandal pan: rayat Officer,

¶40

¶41

SN, J wt' Ntr.2191l of 2020

¶42

¶43

Mudigonda conducted an^{eye-washenquiry withoutthe} knowledge of the^{petitioner and without givingreasonable} opportunity to the^{petitioner and submitted} -report^{to the 3'd} respondent. Thereafter^{the 3'd respondent vide proceedings} dated 2l.Ot.2O2O^{removed thepetitionerfromservice'} Aggrieved by the^{impugnedproc. vide R'C' No'P2/2492/2019'} dated 21.01.2020^{of the 3.d respondent, the petitioner filed the} present Writ Petition.

¶44

4 PERUSED^T E REC RD

¶45

(A) Th rmou ned order^{dted 2-o1.2020lssed} bv the District Panc avt Offi cer, Kham mam vide .c. N 2 ra d n

¶46

"Sub: Mudigonda Mandal -^{An enquiry has beenconducted with} regards the^{mafter of termination of Sri VachepalliGovardhana} Retay, ftectrician,^{staff of the GramPanchayat,Gandhasiri'} Ordeis issued^{terminating him from his duties for the reasonof} dereliction^{of his duties} -^Reg.

¶47

Ref:- 1. Applications^{diteOrs.Og.Z019 and 22 10'2019of sri} Valhepalli'6ovardhana^{Reddy, Electrician, Gram Panchayat'} Gandhasiri, Mudigonda^Mandal. z. inis 5ffice^{letter inR.c.No.P2l249212019, dated} 2t.It.2079,

¶48

Report in^{R.C.No.A4l102} l2|l9,^{dated O7'12'2O19 of} the Mandal^{PanchayatOfficer,Mudigonda'}

¶49

In the reference^{lscited above, wherein SriVachepalli} Goru.Jhunu Reddy,^{Gandhasiri Gram Panchayat, MudigondaMandal} submitted that he^{workedas Electrician with the Gram Panchayat since}

¶50

¶51

SN. J Wl' No.2l94l ot2020

¶52

2011and at first he was paid a salary ofRs.500/- per r lonth and then he was paid the salary of Rs.1,000/- per month for tf 3 last 3 years. Further it is submitted by him that he rendered his sr: l,ices till today with the Gram Panchayat without having any remark:,, But the newly elected body of the Gram Panchayat paid his arrear, of his salary relating to some of the months to the tune of Rs.12,rl )0/- by way of cheque and instructed him not to attend to his duties Uith effect from 17.O9.2O19 and further it is submitted by him t rat the Gram Panchayat indebted to him an amount of Rs.25,000/- t( wards salaries. And it is submitted by him that it is unlawful to termir i te him without assigning any reason. At present the Gram Panchayal^-ecruited some other person, for the reason that the present salary t,r Electrician is Rs.8,500/- by terminating him from his services. Hencr) it is requested by him to reinstate him in his duties and requested or payment of balance arrears of his salaries.

¶53

In this regards, orders issued to the Mandal Pet chayat Officer, Mudigonda Mandal in the reference 2nd cited abovr: wherein it is Instructed to conduct a thorough enquiry and for subrr ssion of Action oriented Report. Basing on such orders, the Mandal^pa-rchayat Officer submitted his Report cited under the above 3'd referenr:,

¶54

In the said Report it is submitted that Sri Vache I rlli Govardhana Reddy was paid an amount of Rs.61,000 /- from the dir e of his joining to duty i.e. from September, 2013 to June. 2019 ar r submitted his Report by enclosrng a statement of such payments by ,r ty of cheques.

¶55

At the time of enquiry, by perusal of Gram pancr )yat Cash Book and his Personal Pass Book, it is noticed that the am: lnt required to be paid towards salaries to Sri Vachepalli Govir dhana Reddy, Electrician has been paid by the Panchayat Secret€r7, further it is informed that the said employee was terminated f om his duties throuqh a solutaon of the Gram Panchavat Grl rernin Bodv. for the reason that the said emotoyee was undef dereli ion of lri< drrf i hv f caandiner f-aa hi^{c drrfia.} i without prior intimati on to the Panch vat Secreta rv or Saroan e 1 of the Gram Panch avat and lution oa recruitin^q othe ! person in the position. That the said Resolution has been enclose I by the Mandal Panchayat Officer, Mudigonda Mandal to his Enquiry Re:; ort.

¶56

On perusal of the above matter, accordingr to the Report of the Mandal Panchayat Officer, Mudigonda Mandal, it is concluded that the said employee has been term I rated from his duties for the reason of his not attending to his dr ties properly.

¶57

Hence, intimated to you.

I \

sN. I

WP No 2-1941 of 2020

Sd./-xxx

District PanchaYat^Officer, Khammam.

¶64

Encl:

¶65

¶66

The Applicant^{- Sri VachepalliGovardhanaReddy'} S/o. rriarayana^{Reddy,H.No'3-84 dhasiri Village'} Mudigonda^Mandal.

¶67

u r vt fal of nd (B) re re DOndent^{and in} rtic u lar Dara^{Nos.5, 8and 9}

¶68

extracted^hereunder

¶69

"5. It is submitted^{that as per the records the petitioner} worked as^{a temporary contingent part time electricianfrom} ,0i;-;" June,^{jorg for monthlyconsolidatedpayment of} ei.!oo7- initi;lly^{and enhanced to Rs'1.000/-subsequentlv'} iilt-fuft"^{anddeniedthat the contentionof the petitioner} that the^{petltionerwas appointed in the year'2011'}

¶70

It is submitted^{that the petitioner as per the instructions} oi tn"^{pun.nuyat Committeethe petitionerused to attend his} Iroir,- in airnlen^{condition and if he questioned used to} rnirU"nuu"^{with the Panchayat Committee' therefore Gram} ;;il;;;a committee^{askedhim to not to attendthe works} i.", ii.oo.zo19^{thereafter sincethere was necessaryfor} ,"i"tri"l"g "f street lights^{the 6th respondent was appointed} ;;;; tirie contingent^{workeri'e', electrician to maintain} ine'street^{lights by way of resolution dated27 '06'2019'} i.-^-it ii^{su-bmitted that it appears thereafterthe^petitioner} ]rorou.nJin"^{3'd respondentDistrict PanchayatOfficerand} ,riJ oliri.t Panchayat^{officer aftercausing enquiry withthe} ilunaul-^{pun.nuvuiofficer issued the letter vide} Rc. No. P2l349212019^{dated 2l'Ol'2020'"}

¶71

-M

¶72

¶73

SN. J WP No 2l9Jl oi2020

¶74

The learned counsel aoDearino c,r I behalf of the petitaoner mainlv puts forth the following_ iubmissions:

¶75

(a) The report of the Mandal Panc- lyat Officer, who conducted enquiry behind the back of^'the petitioner without giving an opportunity of personal hearing :,1 the petitioner, without giving any notice to the petitioner, t- ad been the basis for issuing the impugned proceedings dated 21.01.2020 of the 3'd respondent terminating the services of the petitioner u n ila tera lly.

¶76

(b) The impugned proceedings referre r to resolutions of a Gram Panchayat indicating recruitment of ot )er person in place of petitioner and a decision taken to termir i te the services of the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat gov€ I .ling Body for the reason that the petitioner was under derelictic n of duties by way of absconding from petitioner's duties without prior intimation to the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchar,, rt.

¶77

(c) The petitioner however was not pU on any notice on the said allegations levelled against the petitic ner at any point of time,

¶78

(d) rhe enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner is vitiated, and

¶79

¶80

¶81

SN, J wl' No.2l94l ol²⁰¹⁰

¶82

(e) The order impugned of^{3rd respondentis basedon} the Mandal^{Panchayat Officer reports and resolutionsof the} Gram Panchayat^{governing Body whichwere submitted behind} the back of the^{petitioner and the same isillegaland} unsustainable^{and therefore,the petitioner is entitled for the} relief as^{prayed for, in the present Writ Petition'}

¶83

6 Th learn d Sta ndinq^{Counselaooeannq on behalf of} n nt 2 in lia n a rm nd d int co I av t h s at I, wtn

¶84

(a) The District Panchayat^{Officer enquirybased on the} enquiry report^{of the Mandal Panchayat Officerenquiry (issued} vide the impugned^{letter dated 21.01'2020)}

¶85

(b) The^petitioner used^{to attendthe petitioner'swork in a} drunken^{conditionand when the petitioneris questioned the} petitioner misbehaved^{with the PanchayatCommittee'}

¶86

(c) The Gram Panchayat^{Committee directedthe petitioner} nottoattendtheworksfrom2T.06.20lgandhenceitisproved that the^{petitionerindulged in derelictionof petitioner's duties'}

-<br>

SN. J wP No 23941ot2020

¶91

(d) The order impugned passed is le 3 tl and sustainable and hence the petitioner is not entitled for c r y relief as prayed for, in the present writ petition.

¶92

DISCUSSION AND CO NCLUSION

¶93

A bare perusal of the order impugne(t dated 2t.Ol.zOZO clearly indicates that specific directions had ,,een issued to the Mandal panchayat Officer to conduct an en(l,riry and based on the specific instructions issued by the off i e of the District Panchayat Officer, Khammam, Mandal r tnchayat Officer, Mudigonda submitted a report dated 07.12.2(1 9. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated 2t.OL.2O2( of the District Panchayat Officer, Khammam indicates that :he petitioner had been terminated from petitioner's duties thrc r gh a resolution of the Gram Panchayat governing Body for ilr I reason that the petitioner was under dereliction oF petitioner, duties by way of absconding from petitioner's duties witholrt )rior intimation to the Panchayat Secretary or Sarpanch of th : Gram panchayat and resolution had been passed regardil l appointment of another person in the position of the petitio rer. Curiously the reasons indicated in the order dated 21.01.;020 issued by the

¶94

¶95

¶96

sN.l WP No.21943 of2020

¶97

Dlstrict Panchayat Officer,^{Khammam did not reflect in the} counter affidavit^{filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent and the} reasons indicated at^{paragraph8 of the counteraffid-avit,filed on} behalf of the^{2nd respondent is that the petitioner was in a} drunken condition^{while attending the petitioner's duties and} when the^{petitionerwas questioned the same, the petitioner} used to misbehave with the^{PanchayatCommitteeand} therefore, the Gram^{PanchayatCommittee had asked the} petitioner not to attend^{the petitioner's workstrom 27'06'2019'}

¶98

This Court opines^{that the reasons mentionedin the} order impugned dated^{2L.Ol.2O2O by the District Panchayat} Officer, Khammam^{terminatingthe petitioner unilaterallyfrom} petitioner'sdutiesforthereasonofderelictionofpetitloner's duties and the^{reasonsgiven in the said orderimpugned that the} petitioner absconded from the^{petitioner's duties withoutprior} intimation to the^{Panchayat Secretaryor Sarpanchis totally} contrary to the^{reasonsstated in the counter affidavitat} paragraph No.8. Be that as it may,^{admittedlyas borneon} record, even as^{per the order impugneddated 21'01'2020, the} petitioner had not^{been provldedan opportunity of personal} hearing nor^{petitioner had been put on notice prior to framing}

.'.!tr

l t

SN. J wP No.23941of2020

¶103

the charges for terminating the services of th= petitioner though there is a clear admission in the counter affidavit that the petitioner worked as a temporary contingent l lrt time Electrician from 2Ol4 to June, 2019 on a monthly :alary payment of Rs.500/- initially and subsequently enhanced o Rs.1000/-.

¶104

This Court opines that the action of the espondents herein is not only vindictive but also mala fide and ir clear violation of principles of natural justice. The Judgment c I the Apex Court in Hari Ram Maurva Vs. Union of India a I d others in Civil Appeal No.5523 of 2OO5, dated O5.O9. 2 0O5, reoorted in (2OO5) 9 Suoreme Court Cases 157 helj that even if the appellant is a temporary employee, the s:rvices cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry and t rereafter, acting in accorda nce to law.

¶105

The Judqment of the Aoex Court in . aodish Mitter Vs. Union of Ind!a and others, dated 2O-O9 . .963, renorted in 1964 Law Suit^(SC) 449(Ll. at Dara N E.9 observed as u nder:

¶106

"9. It is also now settled that the protecti<,r of Art. 311 can be invoked not only by permanent public s r rvantsr but also by public servants who are employed as terl )orary servants,

¶107

¶108

SN- J WP No.21943 of 2020

¶109

or probationers, (vide Parshottam Lal Dhingra's case. 1958 SCR 828: (AIR 1958 SC 36)) (p. 858 (of SCR): (at p.48 of AIR)) and so, there can be no difficulty in holding that iF a temporary public servant or a probationer is served with an order by which his services are terminated, and the order unambiguously indicates that the said termination is the result of punishment sought to be imposed on him, he can legitimately invoke the protection of Art. 311 and challenge the validity of the said termination on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Art. 311(2) have not been complied with. In other words. a temporary public servant or a probationer cannot be dismissed or removed from service without affording him the^{protection guaranteed} by Art. 3tt(2)."

¶110

The Apex Court Judoment dated 15.O2.2O12 reoorted in 2OL2 SCC in 'KRUSHNAKANTH B. PARMAR v UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER" iN O rticular Dara Nos. 16 to 25 observed as under

¶111

The^question whether^{'unauthorised} absence^{from duty'} amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming^{of a} Government servant cannot be decided without deciding^{the question} whether absence is willful or because of compelling circumstances.

¶112

If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not^possible to report or^{perform duty, such} absence can not be held to be willful.

¶113

Absence from duty without any application or^prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different^{eventualities} due^{to which}

¶114

¶115

¶116

SN. ] WP No 21941 of2020

¶117

an employee may abstain from duty, ir :luding compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, acc ( ent, hospita lisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be hC J guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a G( \ ernment servant.

¶118

In a Departmental proceeding, if alleg I ion of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary au lority is required to prove that the absence is wilful. in absence c' such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.

¶119

In the present case the Inquiry Offic,: on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was ur:uthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold the absence is wi ul; the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate Authority, failed tc lppreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty.

¶120

The question relating to jurisdiction ol .he Court in judicial review in a Departmental proceeding fell for cons deration before this Court in M.B. Bulani vs. Union of India and other: eported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 wherein this Court held:

¶121

"It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, leing quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidence t: prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental sroceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal t ial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight ( f the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial Llnction, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a r:nclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability t, prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While Joing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact '1e cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shiF he burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of t le witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Hr: cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent fficer had not been charged with."

¶122

In the oresent case. the disciplinarl authoritv failed to pfoyg that the absence from duw was will! l. no such findino has. been oiven bv the Inouiry Officer - or the Aopelljte Authority. Thouoh the apoellant had taken_ r specific defence that he was prevented from attendanq - duty by Shri p. Venkat swarlu. DcIo- Palanou r who orevent: dh m to sion the attendance reqaster and also hrouoht on 1 ecord 11 defence

¶123

¶124

SN, J WP No.2l94l of 2020

¶125

tn fh f nc h w t n 5 P tn I Ah 9 tc. b tsu hde ence^andevidece re Se tember,^195, of irrelev nt^fa an surm rses the tq ored and^{on thebasis} n il u

¶126

Mr. P.^{Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur'who was the} complainant^{and against whomappellant allegedbiasrefusedto} .ppJ"i U"f"."^{the Iriquiry officer in spite of serviceof summons' Two} olner witnesses,^{Shri Jivrani and Shri L'N' Thakkarmadeno statement} ugui"ti tn"^{appellant,and one of them stated that he had no} [io*f"ag" about^{absence of the appellant' Ignoring the aforesaid} on the basis^{of surmises and conjectures' the Inquiryofficer} ;;id;"; held the charge Proved.

¶127

24.ThoughtheaforesaidfactsnoticedbytheAppellate Authority but^{ignoring such facts givingreference of extraneous} allegations^{whichwere not the part of the charge'dismissedthe} app"eal with^{followinguncalledfor observation:}

¶128

"The appellant^{even avoidedthe basictraining requiredfor the} job and astel':nO Ahmedabad^{to send all the training papers for his} i;;"i;; at^{IB Training School, Shivpuri (Madhva Pradesh) to his} i"tiO",i.. at^{Ahmedabad.'An untrained officer is of no worthto the} department'.^"

¶129

In the^{result, the appeal is allowed'--Theimpugned ordersof} dismisial fassea^{Uy disciplinaiy authority'.affirmed bv the Appellate} nrin..itv;' Central^{Administrative Tribunaland High Court are set} aside. The^{appellantstandlieinstated'Taking into considerationthe} f".t;;i ih;'aharged^{offrcLr has suffereda lot since the proceeding} ;;; ;;;;; in^{1996- for absencefromdutv for a certain period'we are} noi remitting^{the proceedingto the disciplinary} ,^{authority for any} Further, keepirig^{in view the fact th.atthe appellant has_} i*in"i "iii"". not worked^{for a long time we -direct that the appellantbe paid50o/oof} tne back^{wages but there shallbe no order as to costs'}

¶130

L2. Th rt es ha fair re n e It f nd n he n o di lina e

.jM

<br>

SN. J \VI' No 21941 of2020

¶136

after issuino charoe memo to the Detitic ner after askinq the^petitioner to submit exolanation fo' the same and thereafter conductin q an enquirv bv all c,r rrinq evidence to prove the charqe and then onlv takb a1 oropriate action aqaanst the^petitioner but not otherwisg had admittedlv not been ollowed in the oresent case. I his Cou ootnes that in vi w of the simole fact borne o ! record that the iti n sno nor n ! e to enable the oetitioner to satisfv the resoondel !:s herean that petitaone r's absence as indi ted in ther order i Duoned order was due to Drooer reaso s, Deti :ioner's absence ca nnot be treated as unauthori ed ab i :nce warrantino oetition er's remova l. Takino into consid( !- 'ation the fact as borne nrecor.l that no enorr rv had he r condu ed, the oetitioner is entitled for the relief as ora)1 :d for.

¶137

In an id ntical situation th is Court v ide its J dqment dated 23.O3.20()9 tn W.P. No s9 8of: l, lO9 obs rved as

¶138

under

¶139

Admittedlv. no enquirv was held and 1 )oD ortunitv was afforded to the Detitioner to re ut ! te lleoatio of z Th f toa bove readsas under:-

¶140

¶141

SN, J WP No.21943 of 2020

¶142

"Instances have come to notice that the contract crew^whose contract is terminated due^{to theirinvolvement in absenteeism,} accident/C&T irregularity cases^{are approaching the Courtsand} the Courts are^{pronouncing judgmentsthat whenever stigma,} like involvement in accident, cash^{and ticket irregularitiesand} other serious misconducts.^{is attached,a detailedenquiry has to} be conducted and further action^{hasto be taken."}

¶143

. ..If the petitioner is liable^{to satisfythe respondents that his} absence was due to^{proper reasons,his absence cannotbe} treated as unauthorized absence^{warrantinghis removal.In this} view of the matter, the writ^{petition is allowed.The impugned} service with liberty to the^{respondents to hold an enquiry orders} are^quashed. The^{petitionershall be reinstated into service with} liberty to the respondents^{to hold an enquiry".}

¶144

This Court opanes that^{the order ampugned dated} 21-.OL.2O2O of the 3rd respondent^{as borneon recorddoes} not indicate any clear finding^{as havingbeen arrived at on} merits against the^petitioner, that^{the petitioner had} absconded from his duties^{deliberately or wantonly nor} there is any show cause^{notice on record as havingbeen} issued to the^{petitioner indicating theperiod of} petitaoner's absence, the details of the^{dates and the} month when^{petitioner absented/absconded himself from} petitioner's duties and indulged in dereliction^{of duties of} the petitioner as atleged^{in the impugned proceed'ngs} dated 21.01 .2O2O of the 3'd^{respondent at the secondlast}

¶145

¶146

¶147

SN..I \:P No 2394.1 of2010

¶148

paragraph. This Court opines that the or ler impugned is in clear violation of principles of natural jr stice.

¶149

Takino into onsideration :

¶150

(a) The aforesaid facts and circrr nstances of the

¶151

case,

¶152

(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner rnd the learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf o the respondent No.2,

¶153

(c) The averments made in the :ounter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 rnd in particular para Nos.S, I and 9 referred to and extra( ted above,

¶154

(d) The fact as borne on rtr, ord the order impugned dated 21.O1.2O2O passed by the District Panchayat Officer, Khamma had been on the basis of the report of the Mandal Panchayat Officer : ubmitted behind the back of the petitioner withorr providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the r -.titioner without issuing prior notice to the petitioner is irr clear violation of principles of natural justice. The reasons as mentioned in

¶155

''*ai

¶156

¶157

SN, J WP No.ll9{l o1 2020

¶158

the order impugned dated 21.O1.202O by the District Panchayat Officer, Khammam is contrary to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf ol 2"d respondent in particular para No.8 referred to and extracted above.

¶159

The writ petition is allowed, as prayed for, order impugned dated 21.01.2O2O ol the 3'd respondent is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for reinstatement of the petitioner into petitioner's services as Electrician, and for grant of all consequential monetary benefits with effect from 17.09.2OL9, in accordance to law, duly taking into consideration the observations in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above, within a^period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the^petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶160

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I I A

¶161

That Rule Nisi^{has beenmade absoluteas above'} Witness THE^{HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMARSINGH'on this} MoNDAy, THE^{ELEvENTHori-or eucusr rwo rHousANDANDTwENTY FlvE}

¶162

¶163

Sd/. P.C. SULEKHA^DEVI ISTANT REGISTRAR

¶164

//TRUE^COPY//

¶165

ECTION OFFICER

¶166

To 1. The Principal Secretary,^{PanchayathrajDepart} Telangana^Secretariat, ftvd^{erabad,State of T} na

¶167

¶168

2 Il " Panchayath Secretary, Grampanchayath G: rcjhasiri, Mudigonda MandalKhammam District

¶169

3 The Dislrict panchayath Officer, Khammam District.

¶170

I he District Collector, (panchayath) Khammam.

¶171

r. sn u.Raghava Reddv, Upa_.Surpanch, Grampar Jtayath Gandhasiri, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District

¶172

6 Sri Jaladi pichaiah, Eleckician Grampanchayath, C;i ndhasiri, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District.

¶173

7 The Mandal Panchayath Officer, Mudigonda, Khammarr District I8 pne Cc to SRt GH.GANESH, Advocaie fopijCj-^"' Two CCs to Gp FOR SERVICES-|, Higd Court'for the { tate of Tetangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶174