Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1414 (AP)

P. Lalitha v. District Collector

2022-12-01

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
ORDER : 1. As the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order. 2. Heard Mr. M. Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents. 3. The facts in these writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore W.P. (AT) No. 763 of 2021 is taken as lead case and the facts therein are referred to for convenience. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis by the District Selection Committee in the year 2003. Subsequently the contractual service of the petitioner was considered for absorption w.e.f. 20.01.2014 as Panchayat Secretary Gr. IV by the competent authority and since then she is working as regular employee. While discharging her duties, the then MPDO/M. Suresh, who was harassing the petitioner and other Panchayat Secretaries working the said Mandal in order to avoid complications insisted to endorse for counter signatures by exerting political pressures upon the petitioner, for which, the petitioner and others have refused, and thus, subjected to untold harassment, and as a result of which, one Smt P. Satyavani, who committed suicide attempt at the behest of the irregularities said to have committed by the then 2nd respondent. It is further stated that oncoming to know the complaint made by the petitioner and others the then 2nd respondent is continued to harass them. Therefore, the petitioner and others went on mass C.L. on 28.12.2015 and on the assurance given by the District Collector, the petitioner and others were reported to duty on 31.12.2015 and attended for their duties. It is further stated that as the then 2nd respondent belongs to SC community, the petitioner and others affrayed with SC/STs Atrocities Act, were forcibly go on mass and common C.L. on 12.04.2016 addressed to the Chief Executive Officer and District Panchayat Officer, Kadapa w.e.f. 13.04.2016. Accordingly, some of the officers who were received the above letter have assured to forward to the competent authority for sanction. But surprisingly the 2nd respondent office has returned the Regd. Cover stating that 15.04.2016 was holiday, 16.04.2016 he was in camp and from 17.04.2016 to 21.04.2016 the office is “Door Locked.” It clearly shows that the action of the 2nd respondent is highly deliberate and illegal. But surprisingly the 2nd respondent office has returned the Regd. Cover stating that 15.04.2016 was holiday, 16.04.2016 he was in camp and from 17.04.2016 to 21.04.2016 the office is “Door Locked.” It clearly shows that the action of the 2nd respondent is highly deliberate and illegal. Such being the position, the 1st respondent has ordered preliminary enquiry, and the then 2nd respondent was directed to went on leave and the petitioner and others were directed to join duty by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, they were reported to duty on 27.04.2016. While so, the 1st respondent has issued impugned proceedings dated 31.10.2016 treating period from 13.04.2016 to 24.04.2016 as “Dias-non” by invoking Rule-4(1) of C.A.A. Rules read with F.R. 18 without giving any opportunity or notice. Challenging he same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The counter affidavits are filed in all these matters, for convenience, the averments in counter in W.P. (AT) No. 763 of 2021 are stated as under. 5. The counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent on behalf of the 4th respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that after receiving the representation dated 28.12.2015, the District Collector-1st respondent has ordered for an enquiry and instructed to submit enquiry report within a week. Later, all the enquiry officers have issued notices to all the concerned to attend enquiry on 07.01.2016. Meanwhile, Sri C. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, President, Sarpanches Association, V.N. Palli Mandal and the Sarpanch, Indukur Gram Panchayat of V.N. Palli Mandal has submitted a letter to the Principal Secretary, PR & RD Department, A.P. Hyderabad requesting to take necessary action against Sri M. Suresh, MPDO, as he is harassing everybody in the Mandal. Further, the CEO, Zilla Parishad and DPO, Kadapa has conducted enquiry on 07.01.2016. Subsequently, the MPDO, V.N. Palli Mandal has submitted his explanation against the adverse news item published in “Eenadu News Paper” dated 24.01.2016 under the caption “MPDO Vedhimpulu Agaledu” stating that he has been discharging his legitimate duties properly and the allegations made against him by the Panchayat Secretaries working the Mandal are not correct and therefore requested the District collector to take action against the Panchayat Secretaries under the relevant sections SC/ST Act 1989. Thereafter, the MPDO, V.N. Palli Mandal has submitted a report to the 1st respondent stating that the Panchayat Secretaries have failed to maintain the movement register and to submit the tour dairies to MPDO and they are not signing in the Attendance Register since 2016 and also not attending the Grievance Day Meetings on Monday and other meetings conducted in the Mandal. Further as against the harassment by MPDO, the Sarpanches of the said Mandal have issued a paper statement that they are decided to boycott the Grama Sabhas held from 14.04.2016. Later, the said MPDO V.N. Palli has proceeded on long leave and hence the Panchayat Secretaries have reported for duty on 26.04.2016. Further, One Sri Chitti Babu and others have submitted a representation on 05.05.2016 to the District Collector, YSR District in Meekosam Programme and to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, requesting to take action against the Sarpanches and Panchayat Secretaries who have not conducted the Grama Sabhas. Basing on the above representation, the DPO, Kadapa has issued Memo Roc No. 937/2016-A6, dated 25.06.2016 to enquire into the matter and submit report. Consequently, the DPO, Kadapa has conducted enquiry on 08.07.2016 and submitted report dated 22.07.2016 stating that the Panchayat Secretaries working in V.N. Palli Mandal have proceeded on Mass Casual Leave from 13.04.2016 to 24.04.2016 under inevitable circumstances i.e., as they are not in a position to bare the harassment by the MPDO, V.N. Palli. As per the enquiry report of the DPO, Kadapa, and as per Rule 4(1) of CCA rules and FR.18, the period from 13.04.2016 to 24.04.2016 during which the Panchayat Secretaries working in V.N. Palli Mandal including the petitioner went on Mass CL, treated as “dias-non” and issued orders accordingly vide Roc. No. 937/2016-A6, dated 31.10.2016. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the respondents and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioner in W.P. (AT) No. 763 of 2021, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in other writ petitions i.e. W.P. (AT) Nos. 764, 765, 766, 767 and 769 of 2021 and the counters filed by the respondent in all these writ petitions are also one and same. 7. 6. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioner in W.P. (AT) No. 763 of 2021, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in other writ petitions i.e. W.P. (AT) Nos. 764, 765, 766, 767 and 769 of 2021 and the counters filed by the respondent in all these writ petitions are also one and same. 7. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents without conducting elaborate enquiry and decided that the petitioners are found guilty and mechanically passed erroneous orders against the petitioners are highly illegal and arbitrary and requested to remand back the matters to the respondents for conducting elaborate enquiry and final report. 8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently opposed to grant relief in favour of the petitioners in view of enquiry reports submitted by the DPO, Kadapa, the respondents issued impugned proceedings dated 31.10.2016. Therefore, vehemently opposed to grant relief in favour of the petitioners and he further contended that he has no objection to remand back the matters to the 1st respondent for fresh enquiry in the matter. 9. In view of a close scrutiny of the impugned orders show, as rightly argued by learned counsel for petitioners, after noting in detail the allegations and basing on the enquiry report, the 1st respondent issued proceedings, without conducting any enquiry: 7. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the orders are devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, having found that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner therein and his explanation was not considered by the authority, set aside the impugned order of termination of the petitioner therein from the service and directed the concerned authority to pass appropriate order after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. The said order squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 8. No doubt, it is argued by learned Government Pleader for respondents that an appeal provision is provided in the concerned rules and thereby the writs are not maintainable. I am not convinced with this argument for the reason, in the instant case there is a discernible violation of principles of natural justice as noted supra. 9. 8. No doubt, it is argued by learned Government Pleader for respondents that an appeal provision is provided in the concerned rules and thereby the writs are not maintainable. I am not convinced with this argument for the reason, in the instant case there is a discernible violation of principles of natural justice as noted supra. 9. Though admittedly the petitioners submitted their explanations, the same were not considered and no personal hearing was also granted to the petitioners at the time of enquiry. Therefore, the writ petitions are maintainable. 10. In Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, AIR 1999 SC 22 : MANU/SC/0664/1998 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part-III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose.” 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (Emphasis supplied) The instant cases fall in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases and submissions of the both the counsel, the impugned proceedings No. 937/2016-A6, dated 31.10.2016 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. (Emphasis supplied) The instant cases fall in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases and submissions of the both the counsel, the impugned proceedings No. 937/2016-A6, dated 31.10.2016 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matters are remanded back to the 1st respondent with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.