Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1465 (AP)

Food Corporation of India v. Ch. Rambabu

2014-12-04

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2014
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per LNR, J.) These two appeals are filed against the common judgment, dated 07.06.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.3967 & 20685 of 2010. The respondent is common in both the writ appeals. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent joined the service of the Food Corporation of India in the year 1971 as a Typist. He earned several promotions thereafter and in the year 1990, he was promoted as Assistant Grade-II. Against the name of the respondent, S.T was being shown indicating that he is a candidate belonging to S.T. He made several representations in this behalf stating that he never claimed the status of S.T. His request was acceded to vide proceedings dated 27.10.1999. Through order, dated 03.03.2000, the Corporation terminated the services of the respondent on the ground that he joined the service as Typist against a vacancy reserved for S.T. and that even according to him, he does not belong to that category. Challenging the order of termination, the respondent filed W.P.No.3967 of 2000. An interim order passed in that writ petition which enabled the respondent to continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation. After retirement from service, he submitted claim for the retirement benefits. Complaining that the retirement benefits are not extended to him, the respondent filed W.P.No.20685 of 2010. The contention of the respondent was that at no point of time, he claimed the status of S.T. and his initial appointment was on the basis of sponsoring by Employment Exchange and that no enquiry was conducted before the order of termination was passed. The appellants pleaded that the necessity to conduct departmental enquiry did not arise, on account of the fact that the respondent himself pleaded that he does not belong to S.T. and that the employment exchange was required to sponsor a candidate for filling a vacancy earmarked for S.Ts. Learned Single Judge allowed the both the writ petitions as prayed for, through a common order. Hence, these appeals. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. It was way back in the year 1971 that the respondent joined the service of the Food Corporation of India. It was not through a notification inviting application from eligible candidates. It appears that the Corporation addressed a letter to the Regional Employment Exchange and that in turn sponsored certain candidates. It was way back in the year 1971 that the respondent joined the service of the Food Corporation of India. It was not through a notification inviting application from eligible candidates. It appears that the Corporation addressed a letter to the Regional Employment Exchange and that in turn sponsored certain candidates. On verification of the relevant particulars, the respondent was appointed. Nowhere in the order of appointment, it was mentioned that he is appointed against a vacancy reserved for S.Ts. Somehow or the other, the respondent was being shown as S.T. On a representation made by him, the said description was deleted in the year 1999. The appellants were not able to show that the respondent has claimed the benefit of S.T. at any point of time. On the other hand, he availed the earliest opportunity to disclaim any status of that nature. Few months after the description S.T. was deleted against the name of the respondent, an order of termination was passed straight away on 03.03.2000. No departmental enquiry was conducted. Therefore, two aspects become relevant in this behalf. The first is about the procedure adopted by the appellants for removing the respondent and the second is as to the merits. The Food Corporation of India is a gigantic organisation and the service conditions of its employees are governed by specific rules. It is not in dispute that wherever the Corporation intends to impose a major punishment, conducting of departmental enquiry is essential. Even where the employee may not have any plausible explanation, the Corporation cannot dispense with the enquiry. It is too primitive to explain the purport of the principles of natural justice. In Olga Tellis & others vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others, the Honble Supreme Court held that the assumption that a particular citizen may not have any plausible explanation, in the context of visiting him with any penal action, cannot be a ground to deny him an opportunity to explain. Even if one treats it to be an empty formality, it must be complied with. An employer cannot arrogate to itself, the power to straight away dismiss an employee without conducting an enquiry. The respondent was in service for about 3 decades by the time he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was violative of principles of natural justice and the relevant Service Rules. An employer cannot arrogate to itself, the power to straight away dismiss an employee without conducting an enquiry. The respondent was in service for about 3 decades by the time he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was violative of principles of natural justice and the relevant Service Rules. On this short ground alone, the order of dismissal is liable to set aside. Coming to the merits of the matter, the appellants are not able to demonstrate that the respondent has ever claimed the status of S.T. It is a rare case, in which a person, who was otherwise being described as S.T. came forward with a disclaimer and the same was acceded to by the employer. Even if what is pleaded by the respondent is true, it may be, at the most, a case of communication gap between the Corporation and the employment exchange. At any rate, the respondent made a representation as early as in the year 1988 stating that he does not belong to S.T. That occasion should have been availed to verify the record as to whether he was appointed against a vacancy, reserved for S.Ts. No steps were taken in that direction, but one decade thereafter a request for deletion of S.T. was acceded to. The appellants did not feel the necessity of initiating any proceedings even after 1988, when the respondent himself came forward with a plea that he does not belong to S.T. There was absolutely no basis for the appellants to dismiss the respondent. Assuming that the respondent was appointed on the strength of a caste certificate produced by him against a vacancy, reserved in favour of S.Ts., the appellants could have taken action only when such certificate is cancelled by the authority, under the Andhra Pradesh (S.Cs, S.Ts and B.Cs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act. No steps were initiated under that Act. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any basis to interfere with the common order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeals are dismissed. The appellants shall release all the retirement benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge, within six (6) weeks from today. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.