Kinnera Nageswara Rao v. The Specialchief Secretary To Govt, Health Medical

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one on the ...RESPONDENTS nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring 891-2/E6/2024 dated 25.09.2024 to enquiry 'petitioner pending HS, Rajamabendravaram, and unilaterally taking steps with a pre-meditated mind to terminate the petitioner without affording an opportunity, which is contrary Justice and principles Natural illegal, arbitrary report before RDM unreasonable and in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to set aside the impugned show-cause notice issued vide Rc.No.891- 2/E6/2024 dated 25.09.2024, issued by respondent no.5. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased issued suspend the impugned show-cause Rc.No.891-2/E6/2024 dated 25.09.2024, issued by respondent no.5. notice Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. G V S KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI R S MANIDHAR PINGALI, AGP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: ORDER e. APHC010467902024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR •* PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24028/2024 Between:

1.KINNERA NAGESWARA RAO, S/0 BHASKA, AGED 33 YEARS TECHNICIAN LAB YERRAGONDAPALEM SANIKAVARAM VILLAGE, PEDDARAVEEDU MANDAL DISTRICT. (CONTRACT) PRAKASAM DISTRICT. GR-II AREA OCC. HOSPITAL, l-l R/0 PRAKASAM AND ...PETITIONER

1.THE SPECIALCHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT, HEALTH MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT

2.THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA,

3.THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE.

4.THE DISTRICT COORDINATOR OF HOSPITAL SERVICES APVVP ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

5.THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring 891-2/E6/2024

25.09.2024 to the petitioner pending enquiry report before RDM and HS, Rajamahendravaram, and unilaterally taking steps with a pre-meditated mind to terminate the petitioner without affording an opportunity, which is contrary principles of Natural Justice and illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and violation prayed to set aside the impugned show-cause notice issued consequently vide Rc.No.891- 2/E6/2024 dated 25.09.2024, issued by respondent no.5 and of the Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of the India lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the impugned show-cause notice issued vide RC.NO.891-2/E6/2024 dated 25.09.2024, issued by respondent no.5 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.G VS KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent{S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents 1 to 5.

2. The petitioner. Lab Technician GR-II on contract basis. Area Hospital, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District filed the above writ petition challenging the show cause notice vide Rc.No.891-2/E6/2024, dated 25.09.2024 (Ex.P.1), issued by the 5'^ respondent, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner pursuance of selected and appointed to the post of Lab Technician GR-II notification Rc.No.1449/E6/2022, dated 11.01.2023. A complaint was made against the petitioner’s apprenticeship training certificate. The 2"^ respondent directed No.01/2022 dated 06.08.2022 on a contract \ inquiry. The petitioner attended inquiry and filed statement of defense. Pending the same, a show cause notice issued without furnishing requisite documents.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, per contra, would submit that petition impugning the show cause notice per se maintainable. petitioner, seems, conducted and petitioner

5. Thus, as seen from Ex.P.1 before issuance of show cause notice, an inquiry regarding genuineness of apprenticeship training certificate submitted by the explanation. Without furnishing the report of the inquiry, a show cause notice dated 25.09.2024 was issued to the petitioner and the the petitioner on 17.10.2024. same was received by submitted

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, would contend that unless the requisite documents furnished to the petitioner enabling the petitioner to submit a proper explanation, the petitioner may not be in a position to meet the allegations made in the show cause notice. In the show cause notice it was specifically mentioned about the inquiry conducted regarding fake apprenticeship training certificate submitted by the petitioner.

7. It is trite law that an employee, served with show cause notice, should be given a reasonable opportunity to submit explanation. The reasonable opportunity should not be an empty formality. Unless the delinquent informed about the imputations and made available with the relevant material, it is very difficult to submit a proper explanation. If such a course is being adopted it is against the principles of natural justice. Disclosure of relevant information would meet the requirement of principles of natural justice.

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Takano vs. SEBl\ observed as follows: “29. The purpose of disclosure of Information Is not merely individualistic, that is to prevent errors in the verdict but is also l ^(2022) 8 see 162 towards fulfilling the larger institutional purpose of fair trial and transparency. Since the purpose of disclosure of information targets both the outcome (reliability) and the process (fair trial and transparency), it would be insufficient if only the material relied on is disclosed. Such a rule of disclosure, only holds nexus to the outcome and not the process. Therefore, as a default rule, all relevant material must be disclosed. ”

9. In relation furnishing inquiry report in departmental proceedings, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Union of India Ramzan Khan^, observed as follows: vs. Mohd. “18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter. ” if he

10. The Hon ble the Supreme Court observed in ECIL vs. B. Karunakai^, reads as follows: ‘30 [i] Since the denial of the report of the enquiry officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice follows that the statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural Justice and, therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report subject. or are silent on the , ^(1991) 1 see 588 ^(19ti3) 4 see 727 30 [Hi] Since it is the right of the employee to have the report to defend himself effectively and he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favour or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right. Whether, therefore, the employee asks for the report or not, the report has to be furnished to him. ”

11. Of course, in the case at hand, the final inquiry has not been completed, however, a preliminary inquiry was completed. Based upon which the show cause notice was issued. Non furnishing of the report along with the show cause notice would definitely cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. In view of the expressions by the Apex court, the authority ought to have furnished the copy of the report enabling the petitioner to submit proper explanation.

12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the 5 respondent within one week from today requesting authority to furnish relevant documents. The authority shall furnish the documents in two weeks from the date of receipt request. Thereafter, petitioner submit the explanation within 15 days. Upon receipt of explanation, the 5*^ respondent shall conclude inquiry and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Special chief Secretary To Govt, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department

2. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Gollapudi, Vijayawada,

3. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole.

4. The District Coordinator of Hospital Services (APWP), Ongole Prakasam District.

5. The District Medical and Health Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole. V r .

6. One CC to Sri. G V S Kishore Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP For Services IV ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

8. THREE CD Copies AL HIGH COURT DATED:23/1 0/2024 ORDER WP.No.24028 of 2024 TL ANDH^;^ r X O 12 NOV 202^1 .69 . Currem Secuon disposing of the wp without costs