Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 738 (AP)

Dy. Y. Sekhar v. I. Poornachandra Rao, Paathrudu

2013-09-10

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S.V.BHATT

body2013
Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The 1st respondent is working as Clinical Registrar (Teaching Faculty) in the Nizamia Tibbi (Unani Medical) College, Charminar, Hyderabad. The petitioner is working as Regional Deputy Director (Ayush) at Ongole. In the year 2010, he was working as Superintendent in the Unani Hospital, Hyderabad. An altercation took place between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, and both of them filed complaints against each other before the Police Station Moghalpura, and cases were also registered under the relevant provisions of law. 2. The 1st respondent was placed under suspension through order dated 13-07-2010. He filed O.A.No.4778 of 2010 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, challenging the same. It was dismissed on 03-08-2010. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.30761 of 2010. The writ petition was also dismissed, however, by directing that the authority shall complete the enquiry within a period of four months. 3. To know as to what exactly has happened in the incident, the Commissioner, Department of Ayush, the 3rd respondent herein appointed the Additional Director (Ayush), as an enquiry officer. After ascertaining the views of various persons, including the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 26-03-2011, by taking the view that the 1st respondent was not at fault, and that there is no necessity to continue him under suspension. He has also opined that good counselling may be undertaken between the petitioner the 1st respondent. The order of suspension passed against the 1st respondent was revoked and he was reinstated into service through proceedings dated 02-05-2011. 4. The petitioner made a complaint to the Director, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of India, at Hyderabad on 18-04-2011, alleging that the enquiry officer was not impartial and that re-enquiry needs to be conducted. Acting on that, the National Commission addressed letters to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on the representation of the petitioner. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 28-07-2012, appointing a Three-man Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. K.P. Srivasuki, Chief Executive Officer, A.P. Medical and Aromatic Plants Board, to enquire into the incident that occurred on 07-07-2010. The 1st respondent filed O.A.No.6242 of 2012, before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, challenging the said proceedings. Through its orders dated 25-03-2013, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. The petitioner challenges the said order. 5. K.P. Srivasuki, Chief Executive Officer, A.P. Medical and Aromatic Plants Board, to enquire into the incident that occurred on 07-07-2010. The 1st respondent filed O.A.No.6242 of 2012, before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, challenging the said proceedings. Through its orders dated 25-03-2013, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. The petitioner challenges the said order. 5. Heard Sri B. Sesi Bushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, for respondents 2 to 7. The petitioner, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand, presented their own versions about the incident that took place on 07-07-2010. While the 1st respondent filed the complaint, by invoking the provisions of the I.P.C., the petitioner filed a complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). Initially, the 1st respondent was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the matter was got enquired into by a senior officer of the department i.e. the Additional Director (Ayush). A perusal of the report discloses that the petitioner and the 1st respondent were not only classmates and roommates, but were also friends. However, the jealousy between them in the department has separated them to extreme levels. Regarding the incident that took place on 07-07-2010, the enquiry officer opined that, according to the versions put forward before him, the petitioner has beaten the 1st respondent. He has also noticed some contradictions in the version of the petitioner. The fact that there is a controversy about the social status of the petitioner was also taken note of. Ultimately, he opined that there is no need to continue the 1st respondent under suspension, and that the petitioner and the 1st respondent may be subjected to good counselling. 6. Obviously because the petitioner is enjoying the social status of Scheduled Caste, he not only filed a criminal case against the 1st respondent, by invoking the provisions of the Act, but also approached the National Commission for SCs and STs, once the report submitted by the senior officer of the department is not to his liking. The Commissioner has forwarded the representation to the 3rd respondent for necessary action. Obviously being under the fear that they too may be accused of flouting the provisions of the Act, the 3rd respondent appointed a Three-man Committee. No provision of law was invoked. The Commissioner has forwarded the representation to the 3rd respondent for necessary action. Obviously being under the fear that they too may be accused of flouting the provisions of the Act, the 3rd respondent appointed a Three-man Committee. No provision of law was invoked. It is only when a departmental enquiry is initiated, that the appointing authority can pass appropriate orders. Such proceedings have already been initiated. On the second front, the matter is being examined by criminal Courts. There was absolutely no scope or basis for the 3rd respondent to appoint a Three-man committee. The Tribunal has taken into account, the scope of the relevant provisions, and has set aside the same. 7. Unfortunately this is not the solitary instance. The fond hope that the differences of castes would disappear with the education, has proved to be totally wrong. If at all any harmony is existing crossing the barriers of castes, it is only among the illiterates. The identification with castes and sub-castes has become rampant and acute among the educated class, that too, persons in Government employment. Hardly any opportunity is left or lost, to invoke the caste, to settle the personal scores. The case on hand demonstrates the levels to which, the menace has grown. The petitioner and the 1st respondent were classmates, roommates and friends, when they were studying in the college. True friendship would have made, one to forget the lapse, if any, on the part of the other. The petitioner, who is now working at a different place, in a superior post, was so unkind to his erstwhile friend, classmate and roommate, that he could not at all digest the 1st respondent’s reinstatement into service. Though the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings, he has taken the pains to challenge the order. The prejudice of such a level would not at all improve the personality. It is hoped that wise counsel would prevail and genuine efforts are made, to overcome the barriers of caste. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.