Ch. Durgaiah v. State Of Telangana, Rep By Its Principal Secretary,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH **** HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 2357 OF 2016 Between:

Ch. Durgaiah S/o Peeraiah ....Petitioner A n d The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department and three others ....Respondents DATE OF DISPOSAL: 11.02.2016

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 2357 OF 2016 ORDER:

Petitioner was a Field Assistant. Alleging illegalities in the performance of duties of Field Assistant, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner resulting in punishment of removal from services by orders of the Project Director dated 15.5.2015. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner preferred appeal before the District Collector. The District Collector passed orders on 18.11.2015 rejecting the appeal and confirming the decision of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner challenges the order of removal as confirmed by the Appellate Authority in this Writ Petition.

2. Against the order of disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed appeal on 8.6.2015 raising several grounds. None of the contentions urged in the appeal, were considered by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority simply stated "finally examined the case on 6.11.2015. The appeal is rejected and orders passed by the Project Director is confirmed."

3. The orders of the Original Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority affects the status of the petitioner and his entitlement to continue as Field Assistant. Thus the order resulted in penal consequences. The Appellate Authority passed orders in exercise of powers vested in it by the Human Resource Policy formulated by the Government governing the post of Field Assistants created for implementation of Rural Employment Generation

Scheme. Thus whenever an order having severe a consequence is passed by the statutory authorities, the order must disclose the reasons for rejection of contentions. In the case on hand, no reasons are assigned as to why the grounds urged in the appeal are not valid but simply rejected the appeal. Thus, the order in appeal is not sustained in law.

4. The learned Special Counsel submits that as there are no reasons assigned in the order, the matter may be remitted to the District Appellate Authority.

5. Having regard to the reasons assigned above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of the District Collector dated 18.11.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Collector for consideration of the issue afresh. It is open to the petitioner to raise additional grounds in support of appeal against the orders of the Project Director in removing him from the services and if such additional grounds are raised by the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Appellate Authority shall also consider those additional grounds before passing the orders in the appeal.

The Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal already filed along with additional grounds, if any filed, and if no additional grounds are raised within the time granted, the appeal already filed and shall pass appropriate orders by assigning due reasons within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 11.2.