Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1005 (AP)

S. Sanyasi Naidu (died) v. Chief of Naval Staff

2022-10-12

A.V.SESHA SAI, V.SRINIVAS

body2022
JUDGMENT : A.V. Sesha Sai, J. 1. Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents. 2. Challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.154 of 2002. Unsuccessful applicant in the aforesaid Original Application is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 3. The applicant-petitioner herein was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in Naval Dock Yard, Visakhapatnam in the year 1978 and initially he was posted against a causal vacancy. Subsequently, in the year 1982, the services of the applicant-petitioner were regularized in the said category. Obviously, on a complaint received by the respondent-organization, the respondent-organization addressed a letter bearing No.CE/2721/SSN/LDC, dated 19.02.1991 to the District Collectors of Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram Districts, requesting them to verify and to submit a report with regard to social status of the applicant-petitioner. In response to the said letter, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, vide letter bearing D/Dist/No.2121/91/TW, dated 28.10.1992, informed the respondent-authorities that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner belongs to “Koppulavelama”, backward community, but not “Kammara” Scheduled Tribe. The District Collector, Vizianagaram, vide letter D/Dis. No.1662/91/C7, dated 28.01.1993 informed the respondent-authorities that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothavalasa Mandal, reported that there is no such person by name Sabbavarapu Sanyasi Naidu, S/o Samudram in Ganisettipalem of Kothavalasa Mandal and there are no “Konda Kapu” people in the village and there are no families of surname as “Sabbavarapu” in the said village. Obviously, basing on the said letters received from the office of the District Collectors, Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram, the General Manager, vide Memorandum No.VAE/1111/C/Major/SSEN, dated 20.04.1993 issued charge memo, framing the following two Articles of charge: “Article-I: That the said Sri Sanyasi Naidu, Lower Division Clerk of Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam did falsely claim him social status as “Kammara” scheduled tribe at the time of his recruitment/ appointment to the post of LDC although he belongs to “Koppalavelama” backward community and secured the said job under Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam with effect from 20 May 78 against the vacancy reserved for scheduled tribe. By the above said act Sri Sanyasi Naidu, sought and secured the government employment against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe by fraudulent means. By the above said act Sri Sanyasi Naidu, sought and secured the government employment against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe by fraudulent means. Article-II: That the said Sri Sanyasi Naidu, Lower Division Clerk while functioning as Lower Division Clerk under the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam did furnish false information at serial number 9(b) of Attestation from dated 05 Jun 78 to the effect that he belongs to “Kammara” Scheduled Tribe whereas, he actually belongs to “Koppalavelama” Backward Community. By the above said act Sri Sanyasi Naidu, Lower Division Clerk exhibited conduct unbecoming of a government Servant and thereby violated rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also contravened the warning contained in the attestation form.” 4. According to the petitioner, responding to the said charge memo, he submitted his explanation on 11.05.1993. Thereafter, regular enquiry was initiated by appointing an enquiry officer, who submitted a report on 11.01.2001 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, issued a show-cause notice, enclosing a copy of the enquiry officer’s report to the petitioner. In response to the same, the petitioner herein submitted an explanation on 05.02.2001, denying the charges and petitioner eventually requested the disciplinary authority to drop further action in the matter. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent by way of an order bearing No.CE/9102/91, dated 19.06.2001 inflicted the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. After unsuccessfully availing the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority, the petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by way of filing the present O.A.No.154 of 2002. The Tribunal, vide order dated 22.07.2005, dismissed the said Original Application. 5. In the above background, challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order passed by the Tribunal, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and further in the direction of justifying the order impugned in the Writ Petition. 7. Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, is highly erroneous and contrary to law and opposed to the basic principles of service jurisprudence. 7. Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, is highly erroneous and contrary to law and opposed to the basic principles of service jurisprudence. In elaboration, it is further contended that the applicant-petitioner herein joined in the respondent- Organization in the year 1978 as a Lower Division Clerk against unreserved/open category vacancy, as such, the very charge levelled against the applicant-petitioner herein that he secured appointment against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe is completely devoid of any valid foundation. It is further submitted that the cancellation of the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner would not have any impact on the charge levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner herein did not avail the benefits arising out of the said community certificate. 8. On the contrary, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri N. Harinath appearing for the respondents contends that since the petitioner herein indicated in the attestation form that he belongs to S.T., community, he is not entitled for any indulgence of this Court. 9. In the above background, now the issues which this Court is called upon to consider and answer in the present Writ Petition are: 1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present Writ Petition confirming the penalty of removal is sustainable and tenable? 2. Whether the applicant-petitioner is entitled for any relief from this Court?. 10. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the essence of the Articles of charges framed against the applicant-petitioner is that he secured job against a vacancy reserved for S.T. category by fraudulent means. A copy of the Original Application filed before the Tribunal is placed on record along with the present Writ Petition as a material paper. At paragraphs 6(I) & (J), the applicant-petitioner categorically stated that his initial appointment was not against the vacancy earmarked for S.T., and that he did not claim any benefits under the S.T., Community from the year 1978. The petitioner herein reiterated the same in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition. At paragraphs 6(I) & (J), the applicant-petitioner categorically stated that his initial appointment was not against the vacancy earmarked for S.T., and that he did not claim any benefits under the S.T., Community from the year 1978. The petitioner herein reiterated the same in the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petition. Therefore, ever since the date of inception, it has been the version and stand of the petitioner that his initial appointment in the year 1978 was not against the post earmarked/ reserved for S.T., category, but against a post under general category, as such, the very foundation of initiation of departmental action, in the absence of the evidence contra, is vitiated and unsustainable. Obviously, on a complaint received by the Naval Dock Yard, the respondent-authorities addressed letters to the District Collectors, Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram Districts, as stated supra and the District Collectors, Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram, wrote back to the respondent-authorities as indicated above. It is also not in dispute that when the petitioner produced caste certificate, the same was cancelled by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and the Government also confirmed the said cancellation. It has been a categorical pleading of the applicant-petitioner throughout that he was not appointed against the post earmarked/reserved for S.T. category. The respondentauthorities did neither dispute the same nor filed any material to show that the petitioner herein was appointed against a post earmarked/reserved for S.T., category and not under O.C., category. In fact, no information to substantiate the plea that the subject post was reserved for S.T., candidate could be placed on record even before this Court by the respondent-authorities. When the petitioner was not appointed against post earmarked/reserved for S.T. Category, the question of securing appointment by claiming reservation by the petitioner could not arise. As such, the very framing of the charge against the petitioner is bad and the consequential action of dispensing with the services of the petitioner is also equally bad. It is also not in dispute that the applicantpetitioner herein was not appointed against the post reserved/earmarked for S.T., category as per the minutes of the Standing Recruitment Board Meeting held on 4th to 6th and 15th May, 1978. The said minutes of the Standing Recruitment Board Meeting are filed along with Writ Petition as a material paper. 11. It is also not in dispute that the applicantpetitioner herein was not appointed against the post reserved/earmarked for S.T., category as per the minutes of the Standing Recruitment Board Meeting held on 4th to 6th and 15th May, 1978. The said minutes of the Standing Recruitment Board Meeting are filed along with Writ Petition as a material paper. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal, obviously on the basis of cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, refused the relief to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the absence of any material to show that the applicant-petitioner was appointed against the post earmarked for S.T., the very initiation of departmental action against the petitioner cannot stand to judicial scrutiny. Pending the Writ Petition, the sole applicant-petitioner passed away and the legal representatives of the sole applicant9 petitioner came on record as per the order of this Court, dated 16.02.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021. 12. Having regard to the findings recorded supra, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.154 of 2002, the order No.CE/9102/91, dated 19.6.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent and the order No.CP(L)/6050/17, dated 22.11.2002 and consequently the respondents are directed to settle and pay all the consequential benefits by treating the entire period as on duty. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case, shall stand closed.