T Ravinder Reddy v. State Of Tg,Spl.Ch.Scy,M.A.D,Hyd,And 3
3303 I t ) HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 39608 OF 2016 Between:
T Ravinder Reddy, S/o. T.Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 57 years, Occ Director (Finance) (FAC),-Hyderabad [Vletropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HI\iIWSSB), R/o. Hyderabad, Telangana ...pETtfloNER AND
1. State of Telangana, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Vig.ll) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary.
2. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, (HMWSSB), Administrative Office Buildings, Khairtabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director
3. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner,, Government of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad
4. T6langana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC), Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad 500001 , Rep. by its SecretarY-. *aspoNDENrs 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to (i) declare the Memo No.6535A/ig-1 1(2\120'14, dated - 07.09.2016 issued by the 1st respondent in rejecting petitioner appeal dated - 19.11.2O14, mechanically, only on the ground of being time barred as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to selaside the same with a (ii) direction to the 1st respondent to entertain petitioner appeal on merits and (iii) set-aside the punishment of withholding of (5) increments with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner and for consequential relief
{ ,.1 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 48806 OF 2016) 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 pleased to suspend the Memo No.6535/Vig-1 1(2)12014, dated : 07.09.20'16 with further direction to the 1st Respondent to entertain the appeal dated : 19.11.2014 preferred by the petitioner afresh and on merits without reference to the delay Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. GOVIND REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for Respondent No. 2: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRI M. RAM GOPAL RAO The Court made the following: ORDER
.,{ '.( HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO 1VRIT PETITION No.396O8 of 2016 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to i declare the Memo No 6535/Vig1l2/2A 14 dated 07 09 2076 issued by the 1st respondent in rejecting petitioner appeal dated 19 ll 2Ol4 mechanically only on the ground of being time barred as illegal unjust and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to setaside the same with a ii direction to the 1st respondent to entertain petitioner appeal on merits and iii setaside the punishment of withholding of 5 increments with cumulative effect imposed on the petitioner and for consequentiat relief..." 2.
Heard Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services - III appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Finance Manager on 05.10.1989 in respondent No.2 Corporation. Thereafter, he was re-designated as Deputy General Manager in the year 1992. The petitioner was posted as General Manager in July, 2000 on
Full Additional Charge (FAC). Subsequently, he was promoted as General Manger (Finance) in the month of March, 2005 thereafter, he was appointed as Chief General Manager (Finance) on FAC November, 2012. T],ereafter, he was posted as Director (Finance) w.e.f., 14.10.2014 of FAC. He rendered 27 years of service in the respondent Corporation and retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of J anuary 2077 .
3.1 He further submits that while working as General Manager (Finance) he was placed under suspension in the month of October, 2OO7 on the allegation that during the period from 2006-07 to 16.0Z .2OOg, the petitioner failed to exercise proper control and shown slack supervision over the staff working under his control and due to the same an amount of Rs. 1,28,92,356/ -, misappropriated and issued charge memo on 30.1 1.2009 and similar allegations were made against few other officials also. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation denying the charges leveled against him. Being not satisl-red with the same, respondent No.2 ordered regular enquiry by appointing enquiry off,rcer. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment
of withholding of hve(S) annual grade increments w"ith cumulative effect uide G.O.Rt.No. 1265 dated 21.O9.2OI2. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner Iiled appeal on l9.ll.2ol4, respondent No. 1 without giving any reasons rejected the appeal by its order dated 04.O3.2013 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 09.04.2013.
3.2 He further submits that the petitioner submitted detailed representation on 19.17.2014 to respondent No.1 requesting them to reconsider the punishment imposed against him. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.l issued letter dated 28.71 .2074 by enclosing the copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.2 directing them to submit detailed report. Accordingly, respondent No.2 submitted report dated 16.Ol.2016, to respondent No.1 requesting to take a lenient view since it was a supervisory lapse on the part of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 without considering the representation submitted by the petitioner and also views submitted by respondent No.2 issued impugned memo on 07.09.2016, without giving any reasons on the sole ground that appeal submitted by the petitioner is time barred and the same is contrary to law as the petitioner has not filed
( appeal but only submitted a representation to reconsider his claim 4.
Per contra, learned Assistant Government pleader submits that respondent No.1 after conducting detailed enquiry and after following the due procedure under law passed order uid.e G.O.Rt.No.1265 dated 21.O9.2O12, imposing the punishment of withholding five annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner. Respondent No.l considered the appeal submitted by the petitioner and rejected the same on O4.03.2O 13 and after lapse of more than one year he submitted another appeal on l9.ll.2ol4 and respondent No. I rightly rejected the same by its impugned memo daLed 07.09.2016 and the same is in accordance with law.
5.
Having considered the rival submissions made by ttre respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is undisputed fact that respondent No.1 issued impugned punishment order against the petitioner through G.O.Rt.No.1265, dated 2), .O9.2012 imposing penalty of withholding of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 17.12.2012, before respondent No.1 and the said representation
.t was treated as appeal and passed order on 04.03.2O13, which reads as follows:
"It is to infomed that Gouernment ajler careful examination oJ the malTer, Gouemment herebA reject the appeal petitions of Sri T.Ravinder Reddg, General Manager(Finance) and Sn B. Satganandam, General Manager(Finance), as there are no neu) grounds for remnsideration of their case."
6.
After going through the above said order, it reveals that respondent No. 1 without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioner rejected the appeal without giving any reasons. It further appears from the record that the pelitioner submitted representation on 19.11.2014 to respondent No.l requesting to reconsider the punishment imposed against him. After receiving the said representation, respondent No. 1 issued Memo dated 28. 1 I .2014, directing the respondent No.2 to submit remarks by enclosing a copy of the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 submitted remarks/recommendations which read as follows:
2. ln this connection, the matter has been reviewed de novo, and it is brought to the notice of the Government that the allegations raised against him mainly focused upon his supervisory lapse. In his appeal dated 02.12-2015, he put forth his contention that his supervisory lapse attributed to him is of'general supervision' at fifth level of hierarchy and sought for a fresh review by Government. He has also brought to notice that he had rendered dedicated service for over 26 years in the Board and is on the verge of retirement (January 2017) and in view of his proven track of performance he
has also been kept as I/c Director (Finance) of the Board with effect from 14. 10.2014 and is rendering commendable service as on date.
3. In view of his appeal, it is submitted that since it is a supervisory Iapse on his part, the Government is requested to tat" ui.* u.rd consider his plea.
7 .
Respondent No. 1 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and also without taking into consideration the remarks submitted by respondent No.2, passed the impugned order on the sole ground that the appeal filed by the petitioner is time barred. Admittedly, the petitioner has not hled any appeal invoking the provisions of Rute 3s or 3g of Rules and question of filing appeal before same authority i.e., respondent No.1 does not arise. The petitioner submitted a representation requesting respondent No.1 to reconsider the punishment imposed against the petitioner on humanitarian grounds and the same is disproportionate and respondent No.1 while receiving the said representation directed respondent No.2 to submit remarks and after receiving the remarks from respondent No.2, without considering the same and without giving any opportunit5r to the petitioner, passed the impugned order on 07 .O9.2016 and the same is clear violation of principles of natural justice.
8.
It is very much relevant to place on record that the
.ri'
Hon'lcle Supreme Court in S.N- Mukherjee u' Union oJ Indld' held that administrative action must be supported by reasons' Respondent No.1 while exercising the administrative/quasi judicial powers ought to have given reasons while rejecting claim of the petitioner.
g.
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated 07.O9.2016 is set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 19.11.2014 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving opportunit5r to the petitioner including personal hearing within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of' No costs Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed 1990 AtR 1984 SDF C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASS|ST4![T REGISTRAR LED SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Chief Secretrary, State of Telangana, Ivlunicipal Administration.and Urban Development (Vig.ll) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. one CC to Sri P GovindReddv Advocate [oPUC]
3. Two CCs to GP For Services, High Cou( for the State of Telangana. [OUT]
4. One CC to M. Ram Gopal Rao, Advocate(OPUC)
5. One CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, Advocate(OPUC)
6. Two CD Copies MBC GJP ?mq, //TRUE COPY//
HIGH COURT DATED:0911012023 1\1L Sl Af€ oA a.
vZ a) .}, 1 I iri\l 70?3 L t , .r- -.!
a-\_ * o,., ,
ORDER
WP.No.39608 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS fA^Z\.
ru lir-l g