Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 633 (AP)

Meka Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-07-11

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- '......to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the vindictive action of the 4th Respondent in issuing impugned order in R.C. No. 599-2018/H, dated 12.08.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive, unjust and violative of Rights guaranteed to the Petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to set aside the order in R.C. No. 599-2018/H dated 12.08.2020 forthwith reinstating the petitioner as field assistant.' 2. Brief facts, as averred in the writ petition, are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant in Adavuladeevi Gram Panchayat in Nizampatnam Mandal for implementation of 'Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) vide proceedings in Rc. No. 203/11-F Section, dated 28.05.2014. Since then, he has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superior officers. While things stood thus, based on a complaint made by one Katuri Gudarayya and two others, the 5th respondent issued a show cause notice dated 03.04.2020 to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner and one Sri Meka Venkateswara Rao, who is also a Field Assistant, was only working for one political party and constructed wash rooms for the TDP members and they are paying less money to the members of YSRCP and they were directed to report to the 5th respondent on 06.04.2020. To his shock and surprise, the 4th respondent issued proceedings in R.C. No. 599-2018/H, dated 15.04.2020 cancelling the contract temporarily and asking the petitioner to submit his explanation to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations as false. Aggrieved by the temporary suspension of contract, the petitioner and one Sri M.D. Ramesh filed W.P. No. 9017 of 2020 and this Court directed the respondents to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the order impugned in the writ petition shall stand quashed. After receipt of the said order, the petitioner was called on 08.06.2020 and 27.06.2020 wherein his explanation was recorded and he was further asked to appear on 03.07.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a detailed explanation on 06.07.2020. After receipt of the said order, the petitioner was called on 08.06.2020 and 27.06.2020 wherein his explanation was recorded and he was further asked to appear on 03.07.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a detailed explanation on 06.07.2020. The impugned proceedings show that no enquiry was conducted and it was passed in a mechanical and vindictive manner. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents have not filed counter-affidavit. 4. Heard both sides and perused the material papers on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 4th respondent, without conducting detailed enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner and without considering the explanation submitted by him, issued the impugned proceedings, which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. While issuing the impugned proceedings, the 4th respondent ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules. 6. Per contra, Mr. M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Special Counsel for NREGS, contended that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was put on notice and called for his written explanation, and therefore, question of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise. 7. In view of a close scrutiny of the impugned proceedings show, as rightly argued by learned counsel for petitioner that without conducting the detailed enquiry as contemplated under the Rules, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings mechanically. Therefore, it is needless to emphasize the order is devoid of reasons and bereft of following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 8. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others AIR 1999 SC 22 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. 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 case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the both the counsel, the impugned proceedings in R.C. No. 599-2018/H, dated 12.08.2020 issued by the 4th respondent are set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the 4th respondent to conduct elaborate enquiry in accordance with law, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.