P. Ramaseshu, Nizamabad Dist. vs A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Another

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the issuance of proceedings in Rc.No.Prl.Estt./0923/2006, dt.29.09.2008 passed by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and to quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the respondent society in the year 1985 and she was promoted as PGT i.e. Post Graduate Teacher in the year 1995. In the year 1997, she was further promoted as Junior Lecturer in Telugu. In the year 2002, she remained posted as Incharge Principal of A.P. Social Welfare Rural Poverty Reduction Programme, Suddapally, Nizamabad District when the school was started and in the year 2007, she was transferred to Nizamabad. It was at this time that certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner and a charge memo was issued, for which the petitioner submitted a written statement. On 29.03.2008, the enquiry officer submitted his report and on 11.04.2008, the petitioner’s explanation was called for. On 21.05.2008, the petitioner requested the respondents to furnish certain documents including the statements, if any, recorded by the enquiry officer and on 31.05.2008, the petitioner submitted her objections. On 29.09.2008, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order imposing major penalty of reduction to lower post from Junior Lecturer in Telugu to Post Graduate Teacher in Telugu permanently. Against this order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry against the petitioner was not conducted properly and the petitioner was not given copies of the statements of the witnesses and was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Satyam Reddy, submitted that the petitioner has completed 23 years of service without any complaint and has even worked hard in a school and made it as one of the best schools in Telangana region. He submitted that the charges against the petitioner were baseless and in spite of the explanation of the petitioner, the enquiry officer was appointed. He submitted that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without even appointing the Presenting Officer and no personal examination of the petitioner or any of the witnesses was made by the enquiry officer. He submitted that as per Rule 20(14) of the A.P. Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1991, the enquiry officer should examine the witnesses, but without conducting such enquiry, the enquiry officer has given a report only on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioner and the defence submitted by the petitioner in her representation. Therefore, the enquiry officer’s report is baseless and the punishment imposed on the basis of such enquiry report is not sustainable.

Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, Residential Schools and Colleges, i.e., Sri N. Bhupal Reddy, was also heard who supported the order of the authority below and submits that the petitioner very much participated in the enquiry proceedings and a copy of the enquiry report was also supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted her objections to the enquiry report which were considered and the impugned order was passed. Therefore, according to him, there is no need to interfere with the order awarding punishment to the petitioner.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that there were 10 charges levelled against the petitioner and against the same, 7 charges were proved and 2 charges were partly proved. Having gone through the enquiry report, it is evident that the petitioner and also the other lecturers, a total of 6, were present during the enquiry proceedings and the petitioner had requested that the charges be dropped with respect to each of the charges. Though the enquiry officer has recorded that in the written statement of defence, the petitioner had made her submissions and further requested for dropping of the proceedings, it is not recorded that the petitioner had ever asked for an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. There is no recording in the enquiry report also as to the officers whose statements have been recorded except mentioning the attendance of the parties in page 1 of the enquiry report. Even the finding is also supported only by the articles of charge framed, written statement of defence of the charged officer and the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no statements were recorded nor was the petitioner afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the parties is proved. The petitioner had requested for copies of the statements and enquiry report, on the basis of which the petitioner had to submit her objections, but the same were also not provided to the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that the enquiry report is based on the charges levelled against the petitioner and the statement of defence submitted by the petitioner and no other statement is recorded by the enquiry officer to corroborate the charges levelled against the petitioner. This is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and also the A.P. CCA Rules, 1991. In view of the same, the findings given by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority that the charges are proved against the petitioner are baseless.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents also, there is no mention about the supply of the statement of the parties by the enquiry officer and also of any show-cause notice issued to the petitioner with regard to the punishment to be imposed on her. In the absence of all these documents, this Court finds that the impugned order is not passed by following the due process of law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. Then the usual course of action should be to set aside the impugned order of punishment and to direct the respondents to submit all the required documents to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. However, the petitioner was aged 53 years at the time of filing of the Writ Petition in the year 2008 and she would have since retired from service. Therefore, there is no point in remanding the matter back to the respondents at this stage.

Therefore, the punishment order in proceedings Rc.No.Prl.Estt./ 0923/2006, dt.29.09.2008 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to make payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner along with 50% of the back wages for the period of removal from service to the date of retirement consequent upon the direction of this Court setting aside the impugned order.

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.