Marahamarath Shahkhan v. The Prl.Secretary, Agrl.Dept. And 2 ORS
/ [ 3313 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK l WRIT PETITION NO: 22505 OF 2004 Between:
Marahamarath Shahkhan, S/o.Sri Rahaman Sham Khan, aged 54 years, Muslim, Senior lnspector of Co-operative Societies, (Under orders of dismissal) R/o.H.No.221-519/A, Sultan Pura, Noor Khan Bazar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture & Co-operative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 22.
2. fhe Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, M.J.Road, Hyderabad-500001 .
3. The Additional Registrar-|, Office of the Registrar of Co-operative societies, Andhra Pradesh, M.J.Road, Hyderabad-500001.
...RESPONDENTS 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 of ceritiorary, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order dated: 28-4-2003 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.2324 of 2001 and allow the O.A.as prayed therein.
!.A.NO:1 OF 2018 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 permit the petitioner to amend the writ affidavit by including paragaraphs 10(a) and 13(a) as described in paragraph 5 of this affidavit, and treat them as part of parcel of the writ affidavit filed along with the writ petition. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI.N.BHARAT BABU, ADV FOR SRI.GANGAIAH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES - lll The Court made the following ORDER
./ ( THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Writ Petition No.225OS of 2OO4
ORDER
i per Hon'ble SriJustice Abhinand Kumar Shauiti) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article-226 of the Constitution of India seeking a 'Writ of Certiorari'by calling for records relating to the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Hyderabad in O.A.No.2324 of i 2OO4, dated 28.04.2003 and to quash the same
2. Heard Mr. Gangaiah Naidu learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill, for respondents.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk in the department of Rural Water Supply in the year I97O, later transferred to Cooperative Department as a Junior Assistant in 1916, thereafter rendering the considerable length of service, he was promoted as Senior-Inspector in L7TB and
, AKS,J & PK,J .
wp_225o5 2oo4 while the petitioner was working as Senior-Inspector at Jagityal, he was transferred and posted in the office of Registrar Co-operative Society, Hyderabad. The disciplinary authority has initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and 4 others staff members alleging that the petitioner and 4 other staIl members were involved in misappropriating a sum of Rs. 1 ,94,094 /- while he was working at Jagityal as Senior-Inspector. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the respondents have also initiated the criminal proceedings by the very same set of allegations by filing C.C.No.317 of 1993 and the petitioner was acquitted by the Competent Criminal Court vide judgment dated 2O.O9 .2OOO.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that no notices were served on the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer nor by the disciplinary authority directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. It was further stated that the respondents have published the notice of enquiry in the Gazette on 25.09.
:3 AKS,J & PK,.J wp_225C5_2oo4 ( { Officer has submitted an enquiry report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved.
4. The petitioner had further contended that the enquiry officer has conducted the exparte enquiry without serving any notice on the petitioner and enquiry officer mechanically found the charge levelled against the petitioner was held to be proved. However, in respect of poor employees, the respondents have let off them imposing a minor penalty and whereas the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal vide orders, dated 03.09.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the respondents have imposed a major penalty of dismissal on the petitioner without serving Bnquiry Officer's report. Aggrieved by the orders of dismissal, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2324 of 2001 and the Tribunal vide orders, dated 28.O4.2OO3 was pleased to dismiss the O.A without appreciating any of the contentions raised by
AKS,J & PK,J .
wp-225o5 2oo4 4::
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 5 individua-ls and in respect of Sri M. Sudershanarn and Sri T.Muralidhar Raju, the respondents have imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and in respect of Sri G.Raju Narsaiah and Sri G Shankaraiah, the respondents have dropped the disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the respondents cannot selectively impose major penalty on the petitioner and let off the other workers who were also involved in the said incident. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2324 of 2OOl, dated 28.04.2003 and also orders of dismissal dated 03.09.1998.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has considered the contentions of the petitioner and came j , !
,// ::5 AKS,J & PK,J wp_225o5_2oo4 f to a conclusion that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that if enquiry officer,s report is not furnished to the petitioner, then he should have raised the objection to the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner before imposing the punishment of dismissal. The petitioner has not pleaded for not furnishing enquiry officer,s report before inflicting punishment orders of dismissal. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the o.A. Moreover, the charges revelled against the petitioner were held to be proved in an exparte enquiry. Several, opportunities were given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry, but he has not participated in the enquiry. Therefore, the Enquiry officer has conducted a detailed enquiry even in the absence of petitioner and came to a conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner was held to be proved. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
AKS,J & PK,J .
wp_225o5_2oo4 ri
6. This Court, having considered the" rival submissions made by -the parties, is of the considered view that the charge levelled against the petitioner was held to be proved in enquiry and the respondents have rightly imposed a punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal. However, during the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is bed ridden and is not in a position to sustain himself.
7.
Therefore this Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit an application to the respondents under Rule 40 of the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 19BO seeking claim for grant of compassionate allowance within two
(2) weeks from today and upon such application being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, by duly taking into account the fact that the petitioner is bed ridden. In respect of the Tribunal's judgment is concerned, we are not
AKS,J & PK,J wp_225o5_2oo4 ,i, inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal" and the same is confirmed by this Court.
8. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
g.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. sd/-G.slREEsHA I /ffRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGIS/RAR I SECTION OFFICER \ ToiI fn" Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture & Co-operative Department' Secretariat, HYderabad - 22.
2 i[; R;g;il"ibi"C;;i"r"tir" Societies, Andhra Pradesh, M'J'Road, Hvderabad500001. S. ihe AAOitional Registrar-;, Office of the Reg-istrar of Co-operative societies, - enOnra Pradesh, M.J.Road, Hyderabad-500001
4. iilccs to cp Fcin senvices-trt, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOUTI
5. oilcC to SRI.GA'NIGAIAH NAIDU, Advocate [oPUC]
6. Two CD CoPies
7. One spare coPY S.A t\-- ;.-:>:i{-rc*a*-- **L,&
t HIGH COURT DATED:18101 12023 TAIg S t'
ORDER
WP.No-22505 of 2004 .) oo t, ) r x rtB ?t13 .i* ;1 '.) DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.
iD .> \